Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 28

Archive 028 | Archive &rarr;

NPOV used as Weasel wording
I know this seems ironic and unexpected, but I have seen countless times when people have cited NPOV objections to my (and other's) contributions (especially in the democracy article) without citing any justifications. The authority of NPOV grants them their way without having to justify or explain how the authority of NPOV applies in each case. I, of course, believed my contributions to be NPOV with no problems at all in most cases. In some cases, these same people cited NPOV problems in contributions which exclusively contained source commentary by respected people (i.e. George Leef). Any chance that we can revise the wiki policy to require anyone citing a policy to justify how they feel the policy is violated, with specific details? Also, any chance that Wiki policy can forbid reversions unless there exists either vandalism or a consensus that material should be moved or removed? Something tells me that there already exists a policy about talking before you make major changes, but I can't seem to figure out which one or if it applies to those who cite NPOV without details or justification at the same time that they make substantial changes.

It's like someone saying, "x," and then someone else deleting x, and saying see talk page, where that person says only that "x has obvious NPOV issues." This has been common practice in the democracy article by two very active editors. It might seem obvious the NPOV assertion should be explained, but despite repeated request, this is not happening. It's almost like NPOV is being used as weasel wording (WP:AWW), taking the form of authority without actually citing such. --Landen99 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right of course. But let us use this 1) issue and 2) your interventions to collect data on how we might fix what is wrong with the Wikipedia policy system--rather than push for a particular solution.  What do you say?  --Rednblu 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny that these issues arise over the Democracy article. Can anyone post specific links to show how NPOV has been violated?--Shtove 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific POV not privileged
I did the same edit on the German Wikipedia, and hardly anyone complained, either. Fine with me, so I can finally demonstrate that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. If all sorts of POV pushers can hijack this platform, just because they are many, fine with me, just now I have it in written that Wikipedia does not respect the academy. Fossa ?! 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, jftr: “hardly anyone complained” isn’t exactly the most accurate description. At the moment, it seems more like a single admin trying to convince just about everyone else that the scientific pov is in fact not privileged. See here for details. Regards, —mnh·∇· 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fossa, there is no need for content discussion here. You are doing this edit only to proof a point, which is actively discouraged. --Pjacobi 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, see also: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Pjacobi 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I violate WP:POINT, but quite successfully, nobody except yourself reverts me. Point is: This is exactly how it actually works, and this is, how user:Jimbo Wales dreamt up this project. Fossa ?!  22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Whatever is going on here, it is definitely not NPOV as in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Whatever is going on here is some form of beating off the stage those reliable sources that do not say the right thing. --Rednblu 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, when is a source sufficiently reliable? An article in a well-established scientific journal like The Lancet certainly is. What about books/OR-papers from ideologically biased publishing houses? Are they to be considered reliable? Other than bearing testimony to just how many half-wits *somehow* manage to get their harebrained ideas published, that is? Even though there’s a gazillion books out there claiming otherwise: there were no lightbulbs in ancient Egypt, the nazis had no extraterrestrial tech advisors, the middle ages existed and were not made up by scholars and the earth damn sure ain’t flat. Or a mere 65k years old, for that matter. Period.
 * Including these fringe theories in otherwise well-written articles imo borders on the brink of disinformation. It gives them undue legitimacy, because anything presented right next to the scientific rationale just *has* to be considered a viable alternative. If it were complete nonsense, it’d have been removed, wouldn’t it? Which in turn tends to attract even more fringe theorists, they get their free soap box here, after all. This isn’t exactly appealing to scientists either. (Well, maybe 24-year old ones…) Without the policy at least somewhat biased towards the scientific point of view, it is however near impossible to remove certain theories from articles. At least in de, but I doubt it’s different here.
 * This is what this debate is actually about. Regards, —mnh·∇· 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are 2 opposing journal articles, what shall we do?
 * Suppress any mention of the one which goes against the mainstream.
 * Report both without any indication of which one is the mainstream view.
 * Report both, but if one is opposing, point this out.
 * The hardest place to apply decide this is in Global warming, where apparently there is mainstream consensus on every aspect - although several sources claim that "the science is not settled". Is this a political controversy or a scientific dispute? --Uncle Ed 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have an "Undue Weight" policy. Viewpoints are presented based on, among other things, the number of propoenents. Views that have too few proponentes relative to the majority view do not get included in the same article as larger views. Views that do not have any notability are not included in Wikipedia at all, period. If some "fringe" view only has ground in vanity presses, then it does not get included, as per Wikipedia's sourcing policies (It may also fail the notability guidelines, too.). I do not see a problem with not biasing towards the mainstream. You talk about reliability of sources, the problem with vanity, etc. but none of that suggests we should be biased towards the mainstream. Wikipedia policy already adequately covers many of the problems you address -- undue weight, for example, disqualifies very fringe points of view from appearing in an otherwise well-written article, the policies on attribution and the guidelines on conflict of interest prohibit creating articles based on pure vanity sources, the guidelines on notability prevent extremely fringe theories from getting included, thus preventing your "soapbox" problem, etc. I really do not see any sort of problem with the current Wikipedia system. You seem to have treaded over problems that have already been addressed by present Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Perhaps maybe you could point out some problems with those rules? mike4ty4 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody (I'm discounting mnh here) seems to be phased with the idea that academic science (incl. social science) should not be privileged (as is my experience on Wikipedia), I suggest to return my original addition. True, it's redundant, but most people would expect an encyclopedia to present chiefly scientific points of view. So, it's actually only a clarification of the currently existing practices. Fossa ?! 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If we did privilege the scientific point of view, it would make no difference. We would report a single viewpoint when (as often) science represented a consensus (is there a non-biological view of the Christmas Island red crab?) and we would report non-mainstream views when there was a significant body of opinion behind them, and not otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In areas like animal species it might not matter, because popular opinion does not contradict or is agnostic about the scietific point of view. That applies to some areas of the natural sciences, but in the social sciences and humanities, the story is frequently very different. Fossa ?!  18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support reinserting that text. Redundant and potentially misleading out of context.   Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ covers the issue with the nuance necessary.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem redundant to me at all and the FAQ is not illuminating on this point either. Fossa ?!  18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See "making necessary assumptions" and "giving equal validity" at NPOVFAQ. Jim Butler(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read these passages, however they give me little guidance in almost every problem I have: Frequently, I do not face "pseudoscience" but conventional wisdom cum a number of journalistic accounts that unsurprisingly transport that conventional wisdom, which is debunked by scientific points of view. If I were to describe all POVs in order of their relevance, then the different scientific POVs would come in dead last, because, clearly, conventional wisdom is more imporatnt in society. Fossa ?!  23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry slo-mo reply here, Forra. I think I understand your concern, but for scientific topics, peer-reviewed journals and statements from scientific bodies, etc., are per WP:ATT considered more reliable than mass media reports.  So it should be OK to mention both, citing who says what.  Can you given an example of a problematic article?  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Enshrining the scientific point of view as "fact" presents multiple problems.
 * In many fields, science is progressing rapidly, and "facts" are subject to dispute within the scientific community. Until things settle down, a lot of it is guesswork. It takes time for research to be conducted and reported. Then journals usually submit articles to anonymous peer review, which takes more time. The most important step is for other science to reproduce the results. By the way, anyone got an article I can link to for this, like reproducibility of scientific results?
 * Nearly all of science incorporates methodological naturalism, which assumes that the spirit world or the supernatural either (A) does not exist or (B) cannot be measured, detected or studied. Jimbo has made it quite clear that Wikipedia must not endorse atheism or materialism. It must remain "neutral" with respect to these positions.
 * Just complementing: "Nearly all of science incorporates methodological naturalism, which assumes that the spirit world or the supernatural either (A) does not exist or (B) cannot be measured, detected or studied" BECAUSE most scientists simply do NOT want to find a way to detect/measure/study the so-called spirit world, in spite of all ANALYTICAL EVIDENCES that indicate it must exist(regardless of the current religious/occultist/mystical interpretations available, N.B.) --- KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be better to refer to the scientific mainstream in terms such as "99.8% of biologists" or "95% of all scientists" or "the majority of climatologists" supporting a particular theory. And it's still better to provide their reasoning. Like, if our hypothesis is correct, then we predict X and Y. So and so investigated and found both X and Y. But we should also include dissenting findings, like A and B also investigated but reported that X was not true; thus, they say this invalidates the hypothesis. --Uncle Ed 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncle Ed, re your question on reproducibility above, check Intersubjective verifiability. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. When "facts" are disputed within science the proposed passage, which is concerned with extra-scientific vs. scientific points of view, has no bearing.
 * 2. To say that you cannot make a statement about the "supernatural"does not mean that you endorse atheism. You can at the same time exclude ideas from your investigation and nevertheless believe in them. Fossa ?!  18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to get a debate started about the issue of some people claiming that science is POV while the NPOV policy never takes a position on whenever science, or for that matter reality, is POV or not. The policy should either say one of these three things: 1) Science is a POV. 2) Science is a privileged POV. 3) Science is a NPOV.

Vote please and then add it to the wiki policy.--80.56.36.253 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to NPOVFAQ quoting ArbCom on pseudoscience
I floated this idea above, and here's a specific suggestion. To the current version of WP:NPOVFAQ, I propose adding text taken verbatim from principles in the ArbCom's December 2006 ruling on pseudoscience. (The specific section quoted is here, from sections 15-18.)

With the appended material, the Pseudoscience section of the NPOV FAQ would read as follows:

(begin quote)

Pseudoscience

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

With regard to characterizing topics as pseudoscience, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruled as follows:


 * Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.


 * Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.


 * Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.


 * Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

(endquote)

Jimbo is quoted at WP:NPOV and I think the above comments from the ArbCom are equally germaine here. Pseudoscience is usually controversial, and the above, well-reasoned decision should lead to better editing and help keep the peace. What do you think? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have no particular interest in which way this goes. But I am interested in observing the coordinated patterns among the scientists. For me, it is like watching a bath of H2O freeze in sections--along the walls, around seed crystals, together in floating clumps. On Wikipedia, the scientists coordinate together en masse to freeze out any semblance of NPOV, where NPOV would be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." I bring to your attention at this time the empirical data on the biased ideological coordinations among the scientists against NPOV in three pages intrinsic redshift, creation-evolution controversy, and global warming. For example, it is easy for anyone to access the actual publications of Halton Arp or Arthur Strahler. And it is easy for anyone to search back through the history of Wikipedia pages to see where the actual words of those who criticize the dogmatism of the believers in Big Bang and Evolution are replaced by the original research of the scientists who say that Arp, Strahler, and whatever other reliable sources that present empirical data that threaten the ideological position of the establishment are "wrong." --Rednblu 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rednblu, I think the behavioral patterns you refer to are indeed evident among scientists, but extend to all domesticated primates as well. Organized science is discernably less of a poster child for groupthinkish behavior than organized ... you name it, really.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think subjects are "obviously" pseudoscience, a word which has no precise meaning, and certainly no scientific meaning. People still argue over whether certain subjects are pseudoscience.
 * To vote on whether a subject is pseudoscience, without peer review, without testing, and without following the scientific method... is described by a certain word: pseudoscience, or in this case, pseudoskepticism.
 * By all means note which subjects have been described a pseudoscience by reliable sources, but a consensus of editors is not attributable. --Iantresman 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, Ian, the above comments weren't meant as huzzahs for every aspect of that ArbCom decision. I think the ArbCom tends to get ban-happy, and did in this instance.  But I did think the part of their ruling that I quoted was pragmatic.  I'm not a great fan of the term "pseudoscience", but I feel that as long as WP is going to use it, we should be internally consistent.  To be blunt, I'm willing to sacrifice stuff on the edge to the dreaded "pseudoscience" label if that means sparing significant minority views.  I realize the boundaries of the mainstream are not sharply delineated, and define it as most scientists do, i.e. in terms of whether (and to what degree) a topic has been discussed in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.  best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors do not have the remit to judge certain subjects as pseudoscience; they are anonymous, potentially unqualified and unattributable. If, for example, the Electric Universe is deemed pseudoscience, I don't want to read that "the consensus of Wiki editors have deemed it so". However, if Prof. John Doe writes that he thinks it is pseudoscience, then I want to be able to refer to the source and find out why. And if he doesn't say it, and neither does anyone else, then we can't pretend that anyone does. --Iantresman 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying that if it's not in peer-review, and claims to be scientific, it must be pseudo. It could simply be a tiny minority alternative view.  Often, no need to label, just let facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves.  That said, lots of WP editors are label-happy and category-happy, so here I'd suggest we at least shoot for consistency, and direct editors' attention to some relevant ArbCom principles.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this talk page is the right place to discuss Wikipedia's science standards, but here goes:


 * Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
 * Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
 * The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
 * The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.
 * Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.
 * Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above.

Our question as contributors and editors should not be, "Is it pseudoscience?" Rather, we should ask, "Which scientists or scientific bodies accept or reject this view, and on what grounds?"

If somebody says that an essential step in the standard scientific methodology has not been followed, then the article should quote that person. (Same as someone saying that an essential step was or was not taken in a disputed election. Source A said they didn't let black people vote. Source B said they threw out military absentee ballots, etc.) --Uncle Ed 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically agree. Labelling something "pseudo" is much, much less important than presenting the facts about what support it does or doesn't have.  Thanks!  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinprick: perhaps Psychiatry is not a pseudoscience, *but* most psychiatrists surely are pseudoscientists, period.

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and totalitarian ideologies
What about using the NPOV policy as a vehicle to push totalitarian ideology, e.g. Nazi or Soviet propaganda. Should this be avoided ? And how ? --Lysytalk 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's avoided with writing style. NPOV requires we describe, not promote any point of view. --Iantresman 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example from an actual Wikipedia page history where there was danger of "using the NPOV policy as a vehicle to push totalitarian ideology"? As Ian suggests above, it seems to me that NPOV could not do that.  --Rednblu 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't give a specific edit diff, off the top of my head, but part of arbcom's reasoning for putting me on "probation for POV-pushing" stems from an edit I made to an article about a totalitarian nation (China, I think). I indicated that some sources assert Mao Tse-Tung killed 20 to 60 million people. They considered it to be a "POV edit".


 * This, however, seems to be a misreading or misuse of NPOV policy. It amounts to using the name of NPOV to suppress one POV in favor of another. This is an error, because suppressing one POV in favor of another is the same as endorsing the other POV; and endorsing a POV is the definition of "POV pushing", isn't it?


 * The viewpoint being pushed is that "Communism has not engaged in mass murder, at least not on the scale of ethnic genocide like Hitler". Conservatives believe the opposite of this viewpoint, i.e., that Communism has killed ten times as many people as Hitler (estimates range from 60 million to 210 million).


 * The method of pushing the viewpoint was to brand the contributor (i.e., me) as a POV pusher on grounds that I "added a dissenting view".


 * The thing that bothers me about this is that I wasn't trying to make the article endorse the Conservative POV. I just wanted to add it, as a dissenting view.


 * Shouldn't NPOV embrace the concept of including dissenting views? (As long as there's no implication that the proportion of people believing in the dissenting view is higher than it's actually known to be?) --Uncle Ed 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I weep, Ed. Yes, I know.  I have seen.  The scientists as a pack are trying to take you down.  Part of the Huwoman flaw here seems to be that we poor descendants of our ancestors have very, very poor tools of intellect, language, and civility for facing our snowballing problems.  Fred is only trying to keep us all working here together on this our grand task; there is not much he can do.  If the scientists won't take NPOV responsibility for our actual Huwoman condition and flaws, then you and I and anyone else also willing to take responsibility will have to think of a way to get them to see what is happening here and be honest; does that make sense? --Rednblu 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An example of the danger ? I don't have anything specific and obvious at hand but here is a somehow exaggerated example but illustrating well what I had in mind. Should the Jew article mention that according to some ideologies Jews are human while according to others they are subhuman ? Would NPOV require us to mention both points of view there ? --Lysytalk 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense dictates that these POVs are presented in Antisemitism, Anti-Judaism and similar articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the brightness of (insert favorite religion)

 * Recently I looked into treatment of monotheism believers in non-monotheism nations. Most articles gave good insight, neutral observations and so on but there was one think which started to nag on me:

Whenever the topic was "islam in (whatever country)" it read like "Islam has a bright and prospering history in (whatever). It influenced the culture with many scientific and cultural improvements with deep root in the society." - the funny thing, the two nations I looked up were china (while christs are a tolerated minority, muslims are an isolated/dispised much fainter minority) and Japan (less than 1000 Japanese are followers of islam, it has no influence at all) - but also in many other nations descriptions this style of propaganda showed up.

This all sums up to "blunt propaganda based on bad facts, most likely spread out over hundrets of articles all over Wikipedia". So my question is: Can this be considered an edit-war? How to cope with it? Who/Where to contact? Crass Spektakel 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an edit war precisely (not unless they keep putting it back in after reversion). But it is POV pushing, if the effect is to make Islam seem more prosperous or influential than mainstream historians and and sociologists think it is.


 * If, however, the edits are sourced to a clearly marked advocacy group, then it's not POV pushing. There's nothing wrong with saying, e.g., "The Egyptian government says that Islam contributed many scientific and cultural improvements to the world." That's not bias, because it doesn't state (blank) as a fact.


 * To detach Wikipedia from the endorsement of an idea, use this formula:


 * A said B about C.


 * Do others agree with this? --Uncle Ed 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NNPOV Redirects
The redirect at magnecule, which redirects to pseudoscience implicitly states (with a hand wave), "'Magnecule' is pseudoscience, period."

Now, such a statement would be a blatant violation of NPOV if it actually appeared on a "magnecule" article page and so, it seems to me, that a redirect of this type must be a violation of NPOV as well. Suppose "magnecule" is pseudoscience: So what? Either it is notable and worthy of an article of its own, written in NPOV (and identifying sources that consider it pseudoscience) or it is non-notable and deserves no page at all. In either case, it does not deserve a dismissive, opinionated, implicitly NNPOV, redirect.

So there should be rules in NPOV policy related to redirects that implicitly express NNPOV views. CoyneT talk 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a policy change is needed, because I think the policy already covers such cases. The fact that the redirect exists does not mean that the policy doesn't cover it – merely that nobody has noticed. It can be dealt with in the usual way; if you can think of a better target for the redirect, by all means edit it; if you think that the redirect is unacceptable, list it at Redirects for deletion – Qxz 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the policy covers it implicitly. However, the NPOV policy has a strong bias to articles; so strong that many people might neglect to note violations in the form of  redirects (which aren't articles by definition).


 * I have dithered on this a bit (including considering that it should be in Redirect&mdash;where it probably should be mentioned) but I still think it needs to be mentioned here. From a flow perspective, it would seem to fit best between the "POV Forking" and "Undue weight" headings in this article. It is kind of a reverse POV fork, created by someone with an opinion to direct other readers to that opinion.


 * In fact, it serves as the poster child for a whole class of related activities that could be very difficult to detect unless editors are watching closely. For example, I could make a link like this in the "Global Warming" article:




 * (Another possibility: "Supportive" references that link to contra-supportive sources.)


 * So maybe there should be a section on "Links Expressing a POV", which would mention both links, of the types I show immediately above, and redirects. CoyneT talk 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy?
Why, and when, did WP:NPOVFAQ become policy? WP:ATTFAQ is aiming to become a guideline, and no more; so should this be. FAQ's cannot cover all cases; doning so would involve Infrequently Asked Questions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since June 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; you actually mean the edit before, I think.


 * This has been discussed at some length for WP:ATTFAQ, and the consensus there seems to be that this is undesirable. If both are policy, they must be kept in sync, or else we have two inconsistent policies on the same topic. This was one reason to merge WP:V and WP:OR in the first place; they tended to drift apart.


 * If one is policy and the other merely a guideline, we know which governs, and the FAQ doesn't have to be complete, or nitpick about exceptions - they're in the policy, if warranted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOVFAQ has always been policy. The page contains specific examples and text that stood on the main NPOV policy page as official for years and are considered central to dealing with issues like pseudoscience (which was in the very 1st iteration of WP:NPOV for example). They were spun out into a sub page around a year ago, and have stood since that time marked as official policy since they deal with central concepts. They will need to either remain marked as policy or be re-merged back into the main page. As far as keeping the two synched, we've had very little trouble doing that over the last 1 year + . FeloniousMonk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. Feel free to revert my change there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An emerging scholarly field
While I have serious concerns about the likelihood of achieving NPOV in an article, that is not the issue I want to debate on this thread. I am in the middle of writing some articles on which it would be silly to claim that there is a scholarly consensus because the field is itself rather new. According to the stated policy, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." The problem I am having is that there are very few published articles at all. I work on eighteenth-century British children's literature (one reason I am working in this field is because there is very little published - I can write the defining book some day). But when it comes to quoting sources for articles, there are usually only a handful of articles. They do not "agree" or "disagree" in any stark way (humanities scholars rarely do that) and to present one scholar's view as one side of the argument and another scholar's view as another side would be silly. Moreover, there are books published on 18c children's literature, but they were published many years ago and are now held in low repute by children's literature scholars. Unfortunately, those books are often cited in other books because they are available (so, a book about the 18c novel will refer to these or a book about 18c history, etc.). This situation is changing as others scholars become aware of the serious problems of these books and more articles on 18c childrnen's literature are published. Any thoughtful advice on this issue is welcome. Please refer to Sarah Trimmer, Ellenor Fenn and Anna Laetitia Barbauld for reference. Please remember that these pages are works in progress. Thank you. Awadewit 10:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV banner guidelines
I see these templates added from time to time with nothing in the talk (which I think should be a requirement). It is not always apparent what the "POV" issue is or what bias the editor that placed the banner perceived in the article. At that point there is little to do in regard to "fixing" an article. Every article gets its extremist that could see biased in anything that doesn't fit their perception. I find the banner itself can add more POV then whatever was perceived in the article, since such a banner seems to state that the article is inaccurate, not truthful, biased, etc. I've also had editors that do post in the talk but can not state what is POV or what view is not present - they just seem to think the article is biased. Again you end up with a banner that asserts the article is biased per some editor (that can't state what is POV) while you hope that someone unaffiliated will review it. It seems there should be some guidelines to adding a POV banner to an article. For example:
 * A POV banner can itself be considered a very visible POV statement. Therefore,  wiki-etiquette regarding the placement of NPOV banners is as follows:


 * 1) It is recommended that a dispute first start on the talk page and progress to adding POV banners if necessary. It is appropriate to allow editors time to correct and respond before adding a tag.
 * 2) If a banner is added, there should be a talk to discuss the dispute.
 * 3) If no talk and no apparent POV is present, the banner can be removed with an entry added to the talk discussing the banner placement and its removal along with a request for further information.  (Perhaps leave the  if review is desired).
 * 4) An article banner is for an entire article and should not be used for minor POV disputes in a section or sentence. Use a section or sentence tag when possible to address the dispute.

I think guidelines such as these (probably greatly improved by this group) would allow for improved resolution, less POV disputes, a common process, and general wiki-etiquette. Thoughts -  Morphh   (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Policy on adding and removing the tags is currently very unclear and confusing, and frankly, the current practice is a disaster.  Editors often add the tag without comments on the talk page (can adding them be done automatically through some fancy template magic?), then other editors interested in the article often remove the tag immediately with an edit comment like, "I don't think the article is POV."  A big part of the problem is the glaring banner that goes right into the article.  Wouldn't it be more effective to encourage first starting with some kind of "Policy warning" banner on the talk page?  Groups of editors interested in particular policies (like NPOV-interested editors here) could watch for those tags on talk pages.  There would be time to go help because the article's editors wouldn't be freaking out about a banner defacing the article itself.  Obviously, a banner in the article would be appropriate if problems persisted.  Gnixon 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review News design
Hello Everyone, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm approaching this the wrong way.

I've developed a discussion with an editor for the News design page, and since we cannot agree, or, it seems even agree to disagree, I would like to hear from folks who work the NPOV issue on the elevation of some news designers over others.

In particular, in the Notable News Designers section Ernie Smith deletes some living and selling newspaper designers that get linked from the page and allows others to remain listed.

When asked, he replies that the folks he chooses to list are "truly" outstanding in their field, while others are not. A review of the history file shows some pretty aggressive removals, despite requests to review the work of people before he deletes them.

The trouble I have with this is that the links to some of the Newspaper designers he endorses go straight to their web sites where they are selling their services and books, thus serving to raise their visibility over their likely competition.

The discussion page documents the exchanges he and I have had on the subject.

Any thoughts from the NPOV team?

Thanks, Designing news 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that the external links in the body of the article linking to the persons web page should not be there. If there is an internal link to the person, then link it.  If the link is used as a source, then it should follow the sentence in a ref type format.  If they're notable enough, a link can be added to an external links section at the end of the article and should follow the Manual of Style for External links.  If the other user or yourself are debating over who is notable, it sounds like Original Research.  You should be referencing something else that says these individuals are notable or outstanding news designers.  It is not your or his/her place to make that determination on Wikipedia.  Anyway - that's my 2 cents.  Morphh   (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I apolgize for rekindling this debate here, but I'd like to point out that this user added a link from one of his close friends not long after it was removed. And I removed it. As a result, he's sort of been on this campaign to prove that I don't have neutrality on this particular article because I'm putting in the names of designers who have actually written books, who journalists might be aware of, and so on.
 * I removed quite a few links from people who added themselves to the site – links that perhaps didn't deserve to be deleted. I made very passionate, airtight defenses of who was removed and who wasn't. His consultant friend isn't nearly as well-known as the other designers posted, who are responsible for wide-scale redesigns of major papers such as The Wall Street Journal and USA Today and writing college textbooks that are widely used by students of all stripes.
 * I did as much as I could to accommodate him and emphasize impartiality (removing people, rewording things), but he's just mad because I'm not going to add his friend in. If you look at the edit logs, User:Designing news only became a member of Wikipedia a very short time after the consultant himself tried to add links to the News design article, and nearly all of his edits have been related to this particular article.
 * You want to talk neutrality? Tell him that he shouldn't fight so hard to get his friend into an article just to prove his relevance. - Stick Fig 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus
I think this FAQ question and answer itself betrays a US/UK/Ire focus as opposed to Can/Aus/NZ/SAfr, and should be edited to correct this. Joeldl 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: Join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumb questions and dead horses
I know this is a dumb question, and (even to me) it seems like I'm beating a dead horse. But what can we do if a particular topic or article series winds up being dominated by editors who:


 * assert that the most popular view is the correct one
 * turn passages describing the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint into an argument implying that one is better
 * insist that articles be sympathetic to one view and come out in forthright opposition to the opposite view
 * advocate the elimination of viewpoints from articles, on the grounds that the view expressed is "wrong"
 * omit background on who believes what and why
 * dismiss attempts to add significant published points of view which conflict with the mainstream, as "tendentious" or "disruptive" or "undue weight" - even when the contributor adding these agrees readily to describing these as "minority"
 * resist attempts to fix articles which have bias towards one particular point of view and remove pov dispute tags from articles or sections
 * engage in debates on talk pages and resist calls to "get back" to discussions on how to improve the article

I refer, of course, to that plethora of hotly disputed topics concerning history, politics and science (particularly the science of the environment) where a liberal point of view is exalted. I do not, needless to say, want to replace liberal bias with its evil twin, conservative bias!

All I want is for article to step back and refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue you raise is particularly relevant for articles like Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, Misunderstandings about evolution, etc., which almost always end up becoming a list of topics that begin with "Creationists say ..." and continue with unattributed statements like "However, [they are wrong because....] " Editors of those pages are anxious not to let any creationist POV creep in, and many seem to derive significant pleasure from proving creationists wrong.  So even if the articles start out very NPOV, they gradually accumulate more and more anti-creationist bias.  Most of the articles seem to have been spawned by debates with creationist vandals of the Evolution page on Talk:Evolution.  With constant monitoring, editors of Evolution have been able to maintain a consensus that the article will reflect the view of scientists with only a brief mention of creationism in a controversy section, but obviously that option isn't available for articles on the controversy itself.  Many of the editors of Evolution have exported their monitoring practices and fervor to the controversy articles.  Gnixon 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite WP:RS to make it consistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and explain undue weight?
See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. You can participate at Undue weight (sources). Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification to the "Undue Weight" clarification
It seems there is a common mis-application of the "Undue Weight" principle, and this mis-application could be addressed by editing the relevant section of the policy page. I will now: 1) explain what I am talking about with an illustration; and 2) propose to make a clarifying edit to the policy page. If you are in a hurry, just skip ahead to the proposed clarification to the clarification below.

Example: This example is entirely fabricated for illustrative purposes only:

The planet Earth is an oblate sphereoid.[fn1] The shape of the Earth has been confirmed by scientific studies[fn2] and documentary evidence including photographs taken from space[fn3]. Antecedent theories, such as the "Flat Earth" view and the "Turtle's Back" hypothesis are now discredited.

Proponents of the Flat Earth view have contested the scientific studies.[fn4] They have also stated that the documentary evidence is ambiguous, because the photographs were taken in outer-space, where it is always night time, and too dark to see everything.[fn4]



The point is this. For the article Earth it seems reasonable to suggest that the second paragraph does not belong, nor does the second sentence in the image caption, by proper application of the "Undue Weight" principle. However, it does not seem reasonable to suggest that these do not belong in the article Flat Earth, because it directly addresses the subject matter of the article.

A reader or contributor who wishes to make an independent, neutral assessment of the credibility (or lack) of the "Flat Earth" view would consider the second paragraph relevant. Moreover, it seems unnatural to omit justifying viewpoints (even if they lead to discredited conclusions) if they directly address the rationale and historical basis for that minority viewpoint. One may question or even ridicule the viewpoint itself, but if the article is going to be on WP, and it's going to satisfy NPOV, then shouldn't the essential elements of the minority viewpoint be addressed completely? If the article has survived wp:afd and the content is properly sourced, isn't the credibility of the viewpoint a matter to be left for the reader to decide based on the available evidence?

Additionally, on the question of sourcing and citing the minority viewpoint, it seems unbalanced to claim "Undue Weight" on the basis of citations that do not even address the subject matter of the article. For example, a scientific study that does not even address the "Flat Earth" viewpoint, or why and how it was discredited, and merely stipulates that all minority viewpoints are beneath consideration, would not seem to be of much use in the "Flat Earth" article.

Proposed clarification of the clarification: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all unless those views directly relate to the subject matter of the article itself.

Thoughts? Critique? Feedback and comment on this are welcome. If no one complains, I will be happy to make the clarification. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe your point is already incorporated in the current policy. If you read further down in the "undue weight" section, you'll find this: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." Crum375 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it might be helpful to clarify the relationship between this approach and WP:POVFORK. As I understand the intent of the clarification, separate articles ON alternative viewpoints are OK, but separate articles FROM alternative viewpoints are not. Perhaps this could be a bit more explicit. WP:POVFORK currently doesn't have a section explicitly permitting articles on alternative viewpoints. Perhaps it should. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the point by Shirahadasha is accurate. Also, the subsequent text cited by Crum375 is also in need of clarification. For example, at one point in time the "Flat Earth" hypothesis was actually the majority view. Under the current wording, WP contributors would be advised against depicting the "oblate sphereoid" view as the truth ... this wording is problematic for a lot of reasons, and should also be reworded to better harmonize with the letter and spirit of WP policy.

Proposed clarification of the clarification: (part 2) ... Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, although a view may be spelled out in    great detail, it should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and it should not reflect an attempt to rewrite the subject matter of majority view articles entirely from the perspective of the minority view. Also, such articles are subject to the same WP:ATT requirements as all other WP content.


 * That's of course a 'rough draft' ... but the purpose of the clarification I think makes sense.

(NOTE: the "undue weight between articles" point below I think is a separate issue, and since every WP article can tend to have a "life of its own" I think it should be discussed separately). dr.ef.tymac 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Just a note to inform all interested parties I plan to make my proposed clarifications to the page soon. 20070328_065802. dr.ef.tymac 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I just made a first attempt at the "Undue Weight" clarification regarding minority viewpoints. Hopefully this clarification is entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of the extant WP policy. Comments and criticism are of course welcome, but I think the discussion immediately above provides sufficient rationale for the modification. Regards, dr.ef.tymac 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight between articles
This discussion also touches on another issue with undue weight, since the current text is specific to a single article. There also is an issue with undue weight between articles. For example, if a separate article on a minority view covered it in greater detail than the article on the majority view, this would put undue weight on the minority opinion. Likewise, if the minority viewpoint was significant, but the article was deleted for a procedural or technical reason, that would also put undue weight on the majority opinion. Since articles can be merged or split by editors at any time, the focus of this section should apply to WP as a whole, and not just individual articles. Dhaluza 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can compare undue weight between articles. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject [..] Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them"
 * A general article on a subject has an obligation to cover all significant views.
 * An article on a specific significant view, need only mention that there are other views, and articles on those other views is the place to detail them --Iantresman 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What about those who insist that we say something like
 * The planet Earth is allegedly an oblate sphereoid.[fn1] Questions about the validity of this view is raised and alteranative theories like "Flat Earth" have been presented[fn2].

Would that be undue weight? // Liftarn

Undue weight?
If the commonly accepted fact is that X is Y, but some dubt it would it be correct to in the article write that "X allegedly is Y" or would that be to give undue weight to a minority opinion? Like "Elvis allegedly died..." or "Armstrong allegedly landed on the Moon". // Liftarn


 * Using your examples, the term 'allegedly' does not seem appropriate. That is, unless the subject matter of the article itself specifically relates to the dispute. Even then, it would probably be best to replace "allegedly" with different wording, consistent with WP:RS and WP:ATT. An allegation is a statement that the proponent readily admits has yet to be proved as fact. Few (if any) proponents of the statement "Elvis is dead" would readily admit it has yet to be proved as fact. dr.ef.tymac 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions on better wording? // Liftarn


 * Probably not, since we are talking in general terms with hypothetical examples. Also, such questions and suggestions are more appropriate on article talk pages, where all interested parties can provide input, don't you agree? dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears deadlocked. Time to call for help I guess. // Liftarn


 * No. The word allegedly has no place in an article, as it is a severe weasel word and I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where it wouldn't be an NPOV violation.  In both examples you give, Liftarn, the view is significant enough that it does deserve mention (generally, I think the undue weight section doesn't have strong enough wording that in some circumstances, any weight is undue weight), but the proper construction would be a sentence, "Some people continue to insist minority held viewpoint, but this is rejected for, , etc."  The Literate Engineer 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree that "allegedly" is a horrible weasel word. However, the "proper construction" offered by TLE has big problems with making unattributed POV statements.  There's a better way.  For example:  "Some(^citation) believe Elvis is still alive, despite documentation(^citation) of his burial and other evidence to the contrary.  The vast majority of mainstream historians accept the standard record of his death.(^citation)"  Gnixon 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where it wouldn't be an NPOV violation. ... It seems the word would be appropriate if used to identify an historical fact:

Elmer Fudd was under investigation by the FTC in 1962 for allegedly "huntin' wabbits out of season."(^fn) The investigation was subsequently dropped when Fudd was pronounced mentally incompetent.(^fn) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

moving instead of removing
Hi. I was thinking that it may be good to add additional sentence to this policy regarding frequent deletions I've seen on wikipedia. It often happens that when some valid, verified, etc. sentence is put in for example lead of article, or some other section, an editor will delete it with a short explanation: not appropriate for this section, should be elsewhere, and sometimes they even say where. However, they don't put it there. This is not a big deal if sentence was added by regular editor, he'll just put it again (hopefully) in more appropriate section. However, if it is put by a one time visitor to that article, and than deleted, it may not appear again for who knows how long. I suggest that there should be a guideline saying that valid sentences like that should not be removed but moved! In this way, beside already mentioned problem, there will be less edits of a page - 1 instead of 2 or more (including discussions about removals etc.). I particularly noticed that this happens when editors in fact don't like the sentence in question, and actually they give explanation more as an excuse for removing it, than as real consideration of having it elsewhere. Lakinekaki 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * don't like the sentence in question, and actually they give explanation more as an excuse for removing it ... if someone gives an excuse for removing content, then the additional sentence you propose won't really amount to much, because the person can simply give an alternate excuse the next time. What's really needed is for people to resolve editorial disagreements with discussion. Your suggestion may be better suited for one of the pages at Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia. dr.ef.tymac 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Help tutorials expanded a lot since I joined WP!
 * If sentence is valid in regard to V, N, and NOR than it is not so easy to find an excuse for removal, while 'shouldn't be here but somewhere else' is quite easy to say.Lakinekaki 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. There doesn't seem to be any sure-fire way to prevent people from making "cop-out" excuses though. Not to mention we should always remember WP:AGF. dr.ef.tymac 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I just put in a RFC on Talk:Intelligent design. This is a featured article with a large and long dispute that has gotten no where with great discussion. Since it is charged as a NPOV issue - I thought I would post here as well as I'd like the thoughts of this group. The NPOV dispute is over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. A federal court case is used as a neutral source and has identified that proponents overwhelmingly believe the designer to be "God". Disputers want the term "God" changed to a less specific term or the opinion statement attributed so that it is factual. Defenders believe the statement to be factual and that changing it would be repeating ID rhetoric. This is the reason the article is protected, with heavy debate going back into the talk archive. Morphh  (talk) 2:05, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

How to report NPOV violations?
The warning templates indicate editors can be blocked for repeatedly violating WP:NPOV. How are such editors reported for such violations and why isn't this information mentioned in this article? Perhaps I'm just missing something that needs to be a bit more obvious? --Ronz 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC) How do you just remove history and facts??? I went to Gene Scott's information page to find out what has happened to his wife, Melissa Scott, and the church he founded here in Los Angeles. There was once a link to her name which originally gave information regarding her background and present status. Now the link has been totally removed. Interesting!! Did someone object to facts about her earlier life?? This is certainly not real or perceived neutrality in your encyclopedia...you just delete history and magically...nothing must have happened! --Sbostrom 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

authority of author vs. authority of publication
The NPOV policy states "The reference requires [...] a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)." WP:NPOV

I think the word "authority" should be further qualified: "authority in a relevant field". A great physicist may express his/her opinions in religious matters. Are his/her opinions automatically admissible?

A related, but somewhat more subtle point: i wonder whether a professional's opinion is automatically admissible even when he/she opines in the field of his/her expertise. It is in the human nature to misuse authority and, conversely, to blindly accept authority. The misuse of authority in an argument even has a name: "Appeal to authority". Ideally, claims made in an article, whether factual or of a more qualitative nature, should only be admitted based on their inherent merit rather than on the identity of the source that made them. However, one of the key tenets of Wikipedia, which i am fully behind, is that readers should not need to have special expertise in order to verify the claims made in articles. So some degree of appeal to authority is unavoidable. The question is: what degree? As i've written, this point is subtle, but it needs be addressed, since it arises in practice in disputes, and has direct bearing on the application of the NPOV policy.

A simple approximation to the ideal emphasized above is admitting opinions made by an authority in matters that fall in the scope of his/her field of expertise. A better approximation, in my opinion, would be admitting only claims from such sources that had undergone a critical scrutiny by several independent professionals. So a letter to the editor or a book review, written by an eminent sociologist for a popular magazine, are not admissible, even if he/she opined on a topic in the realm of his/her expertise. Whereas if the same expert published those same opinions in an article published in an academic journal, then it's ok to quote them from that article. Itayb 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree you raise legitimate points, I also agree that some of your points are quite refined. For this specific reason, I think the proposed modification to the policy page would be inappropriate. The change you propose could be easily seen to legitimize protracted squabbles over credentials, and that already happens enough. Moreover, such squabbles are almost certain to involve disparagements against living persons, which is obviously not good.


 * Most importantly, the term recognized authority already conveys the needed information. Just because someone is an expert volcanologist, does not mean they know anything about molecular biology. If someone were to assert "recognition" in the field of volcanology had anything to do with genetics, that assertion could easily be discredited on the article talk page. If the question of "recognition" is more subtle than that, modifying this policy page is not going to do anything to help resolve it. dr.ef.tymac 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It could certainly help deal with a recurring problem if there was something quotable on this policy page about field of expertise. There are often NPOV disputes where one side objects to citing an expert as an authority outside his/her field.  The two sides almost always end up talking past each other because of this issue---that part of the debate could be quickly cut off by having quotable policy.  Gnixon 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for only admitting only reviewed publications, that seems too extreme. We would essentially be limiting our sources to peer-reviewed journals.  There's too much legitimately citable material outside of the reviewed literature.  Attribution is an important concept here.  Information in the literature may often be attributable to the field, whereas information in, say, Newton's Principia should be attributed to the author.  Gnixon 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * dr.ef.tymac wrote: "The change you propose could be easily seen to legitimize protracted squabbles over credentials". Just on the contrary! What i'm suggesting is that the credentials of the author be regarded as completely immaterial. It's just the credentials of the publication where their opinions had been published that matters. Itayb 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but what about, say, Feynman's series of books on physics. How do we evaluate the "credentials" of those books?  Gnixon 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevant questions to ask are along the following lines:
 * Does the Addison-Wesley publishing company, the publisher of Feynman's lectures, specialize in physics textbooks?
 * Does the publishing house have a good reputation in the scientific community?
 * Was the book's production supervised by a technical editor?
 * Has the book survived more than one printing? More than one edition? Itayb 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you distinguish: 1) a complete crank from; 2) a competent scholar from; 3) an exceptionally gifted autodidact? For some disciplines, it is not a trivial matter to distinguish, and the reputation of a publication alone is neither necessary nor sufficient to weed out the all the bad and bring in all the good. People in all three categories have been published in journals of varying levels of prestige. (See e.g., Category:Scientific_misconduct, Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n).


 * Are you suggesting such personal distinction is completely irrelevant and should never be considered? If you are saying "personal credentials are entirely irrelevant and only the reputation of peer-reviewed journals is what matters", I respectfully suggest you have a tough case to make, and I, for one, am not yet convinced, especially since you yourself have acknowledged certain inclinations in "human nature". Sure, those are all relevant questions, but not a single one of those questions you pose is precluded by the current wording of the policy: recognized authority. So why are we having this discussion? dr.ef.tymac 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

dr.ef.tymac wrote: "How do you distinguish...?" You don't. You distinguish between publishers not between authors.

dr.ef.tymac wrote: "Are you suggesting such personal distinction is completely irrelevant and should never be considered?" That's roughly what i'm suggesting (I wouldn't use the word never. I'm suggesting a general rule, but the details of the rule and the exceptions to it still need to be elaborated).

Wikipedia's own premise is that the identity and credentials of the contributors are immaterial. All that's really important is that the contributors attribute their contributions to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about attributability. Why? Ideally, all statements in Wikipedia should be correct, but a reader cannot in general tell apart what's correct from what's incorrect without special expertise. If only Wikipedia could provide the readers access to a computer, which, when fed with a statement, outputs whether it is correct or incorrect. But no such computer is available, so Wikipedia needs to use a replacement, which is a reasonable approximation to this fantastic computer. The attributability requirement is such an approximation.

There are many possible approximations, but all have the same general structure:

1. Every statement in every article is associated with some object (a citation). Instead of verifying the statement, the reader verifies that the associated object meets some criteria (i.e. that the reference is a reliable source). Let's call such an object that meets the criteria a valid object.

2. It should be easy for any reader to verify that such an object is valid.

3. There should be a strong positive correlation between the veracity of a statement and the validity of the associated object, i.e. if the object is valid, the statement is probably true.

The art lies in crafting a set of criteria, which meets requirements 2 and 3. In other words, we need a Reliable Sources policy, which makes it easy to figure out whether a source qualifies as reliable, and such that if a source qualifies, then claims originating from it are probably correct.

In order to tackle this challenge we need to answer the question: what does it mean for a claim to be correct? A claim is correct if it is a mathematical truth or if it was arrived at by following the scientific method. In other words, a claim is correct, if the methodology used to derive it is scientifically satisfactory. It is quite possible to have two contradictory claims which are both correct, if both were arrived at by following the scientific method. In fact, such a situation arises frequently in fields such as History and Sociology, which are less amenable to controlled experiments than the natural sciences, and where the number of relevant parameters is overwhelming. (It even arises naturally in the exact sciences, such as when Computer Scientists make claims under the assumption P != NP, when in fact no one knows whether this assumption is true or false.)

So now, that we have defined what it means for a statement to be correct, we need to decide what sources are to be considered reliable, such that when they are cited, the reader can be reasonably assured, that the claims they make were obtained by following the scientific method. I claim, that it is not good enough to mark a person as a reliable source, because the same person often uses different standards of rigor for different documents. When a Professor submits a paper for an academic journal, he/she usually tries hard to adhere to the scientific method, but when the same Professor writes in a non-academic magazine, his standards are much looser.

Consider the following case i've run into recently. Werner Cohn is a former professor of Sociology, who used to study Jews, Gypsies and small political movements. A few years ago he wrote a book review for Israel Horizons, a political periodical. The topic of the book he reviewed, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (by Israel Shahak), is tangential to Cohn's realm of expertise, as the title indicates. However, the review itself clearly expresses Cohn's personal opinion, and is not written to academic standards. As long as Cohn is considered himself to be a reliable source, this review can be freely quoted, as in fact it is in the article about Israel Shahak. But isn't it just a way of pushing a POV clad in the respectability and authority provided by Cohen's (authentic and surely well-deserved) credentials? But if the criteria for Reliable Sources were changed, so as to admit sources based not on the credentials of their author, but on the methodology by which their content was produced, this article would not be admitted. However other writings of Cohen could still be admitted, if they were written to academic standards.

But a casual reader cannot be expected to be able to verify quickly and without special expertise whether an article's methodology is satisfactory. So instead, let's approximate this by admitting only such sources, which are known to verify the methodology of the material they publish. That's what i'm suggesting. Itayb 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Majority vs. Minority
When there is a majority, how large must it be before it gets the right to bully all opposing views into submission. Or how much weight should an article give to criticism of views which are not so small as to be a tiny minority and thus ignored completely?

I boldly inserted the following into the project page:


 * Note that the undue weight provision is intended to avoid giving undue weight to a minority view about the subject in question. It should not be used to justify giving a lot of weight to criticism of a minority view.

Have I correctly expressed the intent of NPOV here? --Uncle Ed 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the policy says, shouldn't majority/minority views be presented in proportion to the level of acceptance of each? So with an topic that is very disputed and controversial, and the majority being only slightly larger than the minority, only slightly more weight should be given to the majority view.  In the case of a topic where the minority is tiny (but still notable enough for mention), it certainly seems appropriate to devote a considerable amount of space to the majority view, whether that would be described as "criticism", response to the minority view etc.  Your addition seems to contradict other parts of NPOV and doesn't seem consistent with the intent of undue weight to me, and would seem to discourage putting in the mainstream point of view proportionally.  I'm taking it out for now pending discussion here.  --Minderbinder 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur: Although I agree with Minderbinder's removal of the content in question, I do not entirely agree with the rationale. The simple fact is the contribution you proposed presents an issue that is already addressed in the policy page, which states in relevant part:


 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject (emphasis not in original).


 * If you can substantiate that a specific article represents an attempt to "bully all opposing views into submission," then explain why it's inappropriate. Remember, however, that significance to the subject is the central issue here. If the article is about the "oblate sphereoid" theory of the Earth, then Flat earth views, regardless of how 'tiny' or 'popular' they may be, are of dubious relevance to subject matter of the article. Any squabbles over whether a view is 'tiny' are secondary, and can already be resolved using the existing principles stated in WP:NPOV and WP:RS (among others). Unfortunately, for those reasons, the contribution you proposed is superfluous and potentially misleading. dr.ef.tymac 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not surprising, he's tried something very similar at NPOV dispute: The problem here with this is that this user has been on arbcomm probation since late '06 for doing just this (emphasizing the minority's pov at the expense of the majority's) at a number of articles, particularly global warming and intelligent design, and disrupting policy pages with alterations to support doing so. I have a hard time seeing his attempt here as anything but evidence that he has failed to have gained any insight from the RFAR experience or mend his ways. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a problem here. And I am looking for a way to use the language that we have to clarify what the problem is.  Let us take the global warming page for example.  Does the "Verifiability, not truth" standard help explain the exclusion of dissenting opinion from the global warming page?  For example, it seems to me that Richard Lindzen, violates the "Verifiability, not truth" standard in his own work by opposing what his fellow professionals consider to be "Verifiability, not truth."  Does that make sense?  That is, in opposition to what his fellows consider to be "Verifiable," Richard Lindzen seems to be proclaiming truth.  Would you agree?  --Rednblu 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

List of perceived non-Neutral articles
Is there one?

Jackiespeel 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:NPOV disputes I guess... // Liftarn

A neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias
I would submit that this should forbid a militant and relentless attack by the "majority" on any "minority" point of view which has the effect of marginalizing the minority or implying that it is "wrong". Writers like FeloniousMonk keep removing any information which presents notable minority views in a good light, using the blatantly specious argument that the undue weight provision not only permits this, but requires it. They are wrong, and Jimbo has said so.

I wrote:
 * The undue weight provision is intended to avoid giving undue weight to a minority view about the subject in question. It should not be used to justify giving a lot of weight to criticism of a minority view.

If I'm wrong, you should begin by explaining what is wrong with the specific edit made. If either of these sentences contains an error, I wish someone point it out. To me, it seems like I am just stating the policy we already have. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To Uncle Ed, As already stated above:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject (emphasis not in original).


 * If you feel criticism of a view is treated disproportionately to the significance of the subject, (either too much or not enough) the existing wording of the policy already addresses that issue and you can make your case from there on the article discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that certain Wikipedia pages are held hostage to OriginalResearch. However, the problem is the lack of clear and self-consistent policy text.  Would "Verifiability, not truth" be a fair standard for assessing the balance between majority and minority views?  --Rednblu 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are familiar with the current discussion of the role of "truth" as substantiation for WP content (I'd link it but im in a hurry) you will easily see that road is an intellectual tarpit, and well beyond the scope of this discussion page. Moreover, the burden of evidence for adding content to WP rests with the proponents. If you wish to proceed here you might do well to make a very clear and compelling case that the current wording of *this* policy text is unambiguously in need of correction. As far as I can see, that case has not yet been made. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Parenthetical aside in response to the honorable User:Dreftymac): The only problem I see is that some Wikipedia pages are held hostage to OriginalResearch so that WP:NPOV is clearly violated.  The honorable User:Ed Poor has modeled this very real problem as a violation of "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias"--which at least resembles the shadowed shape of the problem.  I am looking for a better word modeling of the problem and am exploring "Verifiability, not truth."  I don't know yet if this line of inquiry will be fruitful; I need more data; we need more data.  --Rednblu 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-defacto non-dejure countries and their categorization
I inquire a second opinion on categorization and treatment of non-defacto (country is not recognized by anybody) and non-dejure (country does not claim to exist) countries on wikipedia in the light of this very policy. -- Cat chi? 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

moral resonsibility
Shouldn't the policy mention the moral resonsibility of editors to work towards NPOV? —AldeBaer 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This and related issues are discussed at WP:AGF and WP:5. dr.ef.tymac 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

restoring section
This page has recently been used as "evidence" that NPOV requires us to depict fringe theories of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays as "scholarly". The wording in question was inserted by a user on his second (and last) edit to Wikipedia. As the wording he inserted doesn't conform to reality, I'm changing it back to the wording before he got here, which is uncontroversial and conveys the point more effectively. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * disagree. Certainly not a "fringe" theory anyhow. With proponents like Mark Twain, Walt Whitman and several Supreme Court Justices, I would defy anyone to mention a modern fringe theory that boasts such proponents.Smatprt 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wholeheartedly agree. That statement simply flew in the face of accepted academic knowledge and was clearly POV pushing. I wouldn't expect people glancing through this page to know much about the full situation unless they had spent any time looking into the topic. DreamGuy 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * disagree. if it's such a fringe theory, then someone would have noticed it over 3 years. Apparently it did not raise red flags with the thousands of visitors to this page. Smatprt 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn straight. That stuff just sneaked in there, huh? Embarrassing that it lasted this long. john k 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * embarrassing ...or... silent consensus.Smatprt 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with edit. It has been up there for years on a very well-read page. Before you delete it you should post your objection on all the affected pages and build a concensus. I do note that the three editors above are not simply "neutral editors" but have voiced support before for cutting anything from Wikipedia that challenges their own POV about Shakespearean authorship issues. They are certainly no more neutral than I, an authorship student and true "doubter" Smatprt 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposed edit. Its a historic irony that, in April of 2007, anyone should think that a conscious acknowledgement of the controversial nature of Shakespearean authorship should be eliminated from a wikipedia article. Never before has the case against Shakespeare of Stratford's authorship seemed so shaky, or so unlikely to endure, than just now. Anyone who has followed the history of the dispute over the last fifty years understands that this is true. Within the past six months, two accredited Universities, Brunel in London, and Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, have announced that they are granting Master's Degrees in Shakespearean Authorship studies. And yet, writers on this forum seem to think that by cutting out the bits they don't like, the question is going to disappear. Well, newsflash! It ain't gonna work. Let us err, if we err, on the side of tolerance and oppeness:

"Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages--BenJonson 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposed edit, for all the reasons given by Smtprt and BenJonson.Mizelmouse 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether the above editors are neutral or not matters little. We don't just go around and edit policies significantly, altering the text, without any discussion. Just because no one noticed it doen't make it policy (this page was only edited every few days back then). Also, calling the removal vandalism after it has been discussed here appears to be an attempt to cover up the reversion. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree: given the facts of the case, the proposed removal is indefensible.If effected, it will return to haunt the editors.--BenJonson 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that no one read that edit in three years? It seems to me that thousands of editors have read that statement and no one objected until someone clearly POV changed it back to support their own argument. That is why I called it vandalism. I suppose I would like to know why you are not willing to hear comments from other (neutral) editors on this subject before reverting?Smatprt 03:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "someone clearly POV changed it back to support their own argument." No, someone brought it up here, 3 people agreed it was POV and it was changed to something non-POV. And, as I said in my edit summary, this page is hardly the place to discuss the authorship of Shakespeare's works. To get more opinions, I've requested an WP:RFC/POLICIES and left a note on WP:VPP. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You mistake the point at issue. The point at issue is whether the authorship question is a reasonable case study of how Wikipedia, in general, should approach controversial issues. The proposed edit solves the problem, once and for all, doesn't it? Controversial issues should be ignored. Tyrranical majorities should be worshipped. Facts and history should be discounted. Good work, folks. Keep it up.--BenJonson 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is where I officially object to the Shakespeare Authorship Question being regarded as a "fringe" theory - as noted in the opening sentence of this talk section. Comparisons to Flat Earthers or Holocost deniers do not belong in this conversation. Since this "fringe" status is being used as a tactic in numerous edits and deletion, I offer the following information to hopefully negate those labels as we have this discussion:Smatprt 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

“Claremont, California, April 23, 2007 – Today, on the 391st anniversary of the death of Stratford’s Mr. William “Shakspere,” generally regarded as the author of the works of William “Shakespeare,” a new organization – the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC) – posted on its website the names of 132 signers of its “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare.” The signatures were gathered just in the last two weeks on its website at www.DoubtAboutWill.org The SAC says it plans to continue operating the website, gathering and posting names of signatories, through April 23, 2016, the 400th anniversary of the death of Mr. William “Shakspere” of Stratford.

The list includes, most notably, prominent Shakespearean actors Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, former artistic director at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London, plus Dean Keith Simonton, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, a Shakespeare lover who is widely regarded by his peers as perhaps the world’s leading expert on creativity and genius. Simonton reveres Shakespeare, but can’t accept the traditional attribution to the man from Stratford. Also named on the list is Charles Champlin, former Arts Critic Emeritus at the Los Angeles Times.

The 132 declaration signers include 34 current or former college and university faculty members, 34 people with various types of doctoral degrees, and another 31 people with various master’s degrees. “This is a man bites dog story,” said SAC chairman John Shahan, principal author of the declaration. “Orthodox Shakespeare scholars would have the public believe that only deranged people in isolated fringe groups question the identity of William Shakespeare. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The declaration itself names twenty prominent doubters of the past, including Mark Twain, Henry and William James, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, Tyrone Guthrie, Charlie Chaplin, John Galsworthy, Sir John Gielgud, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Mortimer J. Adler, editor of the Great Books at the University of Chicago, and Paul Nitze, co-founder of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “If orthodox scholars were correct, it would be impossible to come up with such a list,” Shahan said.

“One wonders, when orthodox scholars characterize all authorship doubters as ‘conspiracy theorists,’ or ‘snobs’ who cannot accept the idea of a commoner having the ability to produce great literature, exactly which of these outstanding individuals are they referring to? Was Walt Whitman, the poet of Democracy and the common man, just a snob? Charlie Chaplin? Twain? Reporters should ask them. When they say authorship doubters are all irrational, does that include the Supreme Court Justices? Now, they might also ask, if the “ignorant fools” could write such a declaration, why haven’t you?”

According to its website Home page, the SAC “has nothing against the man from Stratford-on-Avon, but we doubt that he was the author of the works. Our goal is to legitimize the issue in academia so students, teachers and professors can feel free to pursue it. This is necessary because the issue is widely viewed as settled in academia and is treated as a taboo subject. We believe that an open-minded examination of the evidence shows that the issue should be taken seriously. Your signature on the declaration will help us make the case that there is reasonable doubt about the author.” posted by Smatprt 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would urge BenJonson and Smatprt to keep the debate about Shakespearian authorship confined to the talk pages of the relevant articles. This stuff has no place in one of Wikipedia's core content policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um - we were asked to make comments here.

I actually thought the previous version was an example of Wikpedia's enlightened vision. It is the perfect example of how to deal with a controversial subject that is growing in popular interest. Given that the last 2 editors to comment on this page, both agree that the previous version was preferable, should we think about going back to it?Smatprt 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Engaging in disputes
"The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them."

What about the dispute concerning whether something is a dispute or not? Isn't that a dispute, and wouldn't choosing which one is a dispute and which one isn't be engaging in the dispute as to which disputes are true disputes? We should characterize disputes. OK. But there is no objective truth and unanimity as to the which things are true disputes, so editors have to choose which ones are disputes, engaging in the dispute as to which disputes are true disputes and which ones aren't. A.Z. 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you're asking how we know if something is controversial? Our sources should make that clear.  Friday (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And how do you decide which sources are credible, without engaging in a dispute about which sources are credible? A.Z. 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can engage in all the good faith meta-disputing necessary on the talk page, this is about how our articles treat things, not our editors. --tjstrf talk 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But, at the end, the article will have the point of view of whoever won the dispute about which sources are credible. A.Z. 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh --tjstrf talk 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An article will engage in the dispute about which sources are credible each time that the article uses any source, because using a source implies saying that the source is credible. So, every article engages in the disputes about which sources are credible. A.Z. 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I suppose our web-based format also implicitly takes a side in disputes regarding Luddism. Amusing logical diversions aside, is there a point to this thread? --tjstrf talk 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would really like it if the policy acknowledged that it is impossible to avoid engaging in disputes, just as it acknowledges that objectivity is impossible. A.Z. 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But that we require reliable sources does not mean we engage in disputes on article pages. The rule is about how we treat material that we do accept in our writing, in other words that Wikipedia does not "personally" make arguments for or against views, rather describing the arguments made by others. Which opinions we use are dependent on policies other than this one. --tjstrf talk 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I fail to see the whole point of this policy. What do you mean by "how we treat material"? A.Z. 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still would like an answer, even if it isn't by tjstrf. A.Z. 01:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cllahes with outside-world rules about POV / NPOV‎

 * The section Nazi human experimentation causes an unusual NPOV situation: the rules tell us to be NPOV in reporting a situation where scientists in the outside world are under a rule not to be NPOV, and accordingly someone tagged the section . Anthony Appleyard 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

marginal journalism
An editor is trying to distort the D. James Kennedy article by using unreliable sources. None of these people in the sources have qualifications to speak authoritatively on religious issues, yet by including them in the article who give credence to their outlandish claims that Dobson is a "leader" in the "Dominionist movement." I have checked sources, ranging from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, to various religious, sociological and political journals and magazines carried by major academic databases such as Academic Source Premier and UMI/Proquest. I cannot find any other sources who make this outlandish claims except for these small group of journalists (and an activist website Theocracy Watch, which is even more unreliable as source). If this inclusion can be carried as NPOV, then I am not sure what can be excluded from Wikipedia at all. Please advice. --LC 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources I have added are:
 * Michelle Goldberg, a journalist who teaches at NYU; the material comes from a book of hers on the subject published by W.W. Norton;
 * A article by Jane Lampman from the Christian Science Monitor;
 * An article by Bob Moser in Rolling Stone; and
 * Frederick Clarkson, a reputable journalist and author of a book on the topic.

I also restored material from Theocracy Watch, which was present when LC whitewashed the whole section. I did not say "X is Y", I stated that "X has been described as being Y" and supplied the (reliable) sources. 72.198.121.115 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lampman uses Clarkson as source. Rolling Stone is an entertainment magazine. Theocracy Watch is ran by an environmental activist without any professional qualifications. Anyone can start a website. That's why they are not a reliable source unless they are the views of someone writing within their own professional specialization. These journalists are also known for their political activism, which make these sources even more spurious. --LC 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note: The dispute you are raising here relates to the article D. James Kennedy. This discussion page is not intended for disputes over article content, but instead for discussions about the content policy itself. (For appropriate places to discuss this dispute, see WP:MEDCAB WP:ANI WP:RFC). dr.ef.tymac 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How does Wikipedia deal with editors making substantive changes to articles supported with citations of books or documents written by individual, fringe/extremist academics or individual biased parties? It would be very easy for those intent on distorting a concept in the public mind to do so by paying an unemployed academic, one holding an impressive degree to add "authority" and "expert-status" to their work, to write articles or claim articles written by another as their own. What sort of qualifiers can be tagged onto a statement to indicate a potentially unreliable source? Of particular concern in my asking this question is the practice of historical revisionism by interested parties. Kholtyn 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can express concerns in talk page about the reliability of these sources (see WP:RS. You can also read and apply WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists and NPOV
There is a vigorous debate on the issue of difficult lists in Wikipedia as it pertains to maintaining NPOV and not only verifiability. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline

The discussion is based on this disputed addition to the guideline: List_guideline.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV & naming conventions
Please, take a quick look at the discussion at "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia", and this edit, in relation to the current naming dispute at the article on the Shatt al-Arab waterway. It's just the latest example of something I have encountered very often, and which takes a lot of time and effort to deal with: editors arguing that "WP:NPOV demands that we use double titles in articles about disputed regions, zones, territories, etc... Using one single name would imply ownership or endorsement of one side of the dispute".

In this case, users are relying on this interpretation of WP:NPOV to advocate for "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" (Persian/Arab names, in alphabetical order, when "Shatt al-Arab" is the one commonly used in English - it's the English name, for crying out loud :-). I have encountered the same argument in favour of "Kosova/Kosovo" (viewed as "Albanian/Serbian" names) and basically every other article related to Kosovo... "Using Kosovo alone implies endorsing Serbian claims over the region".

So, to finish these arguments once and for all, and saving me and others lots of time... how about adding some clear wording to this policy, something that every newbie could understand, along the lines of:

“NPOV does not advocate the use of double titles "to keep articles neutral". We aim to write neutral, fair, unbiased articles; but we aim to write them in English, using the names the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.”

Or any other wording to that effect. Something I can just link to instead of having to spend time more sterile discussions... What do you think ? - Best regards, Ev 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence that about 90% of English usage is Shatt al-Arab not Arvand (which is unfamiliar even to a native speaker of English who has dealt professionally with Iranian affairs) can be found at Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud). There is no real question of what English usage is; merely whether NPOV can be cited against it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added this text, based on the the discussion in the tutorial. Please tweak; if you revert, please explain here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality does not require inclusion of all possible views in the name of the article itself; if the name is controverted, that should be discussed in full in the text of the article, with sources. Article names are intended to be intelligible to our readers, who speak English; articles should be titled simply, and in accord with English usage.

Usually I would find that text clear enough... but then again, in normal circumstances, that text wouldn't be necessary at all :-) It may be that right now I'm in a very pessimistic mood about this whole thing, but I feel that, in order to avoid a repetition of the madness we're witnessing at the Shatt al-Arab article, "uninterpretable" wording about double titles would be needed. Something that even the most cynical, tendentious and disruptive of people wouldn't be able to distort. – Perhaps simply adding the green sentence:

Neutrality does not require the inclusion of all possible views in the name of the article itself; if the name is controversial, that should be discussed in full in the text of the article, with sources. Article names are intended to be intelligible to our readers, who speak English; articles should be titled simply, and in accord with English usage. Don't ever use a double title, either Name1/Name2 or Name1 (Name2), to make an article conform to the neutral point of view.
 * I dislike prescription, even on policy pages; and Imia/Kardak seems to be both usage and neutral. How about Double titles, like Name1/Name2 or Name1(Name2) do not make articles more neutral; they tend to produce move wars about whose name gets to go first. ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this new wording more than my version (which actually was a simplification of what I was thinking after looking at that talk page: "For the love of God, don't ever, never, under any circumstance, use NPOV as an excuse to disregard every other WP policy & usage !!!" :-) In any case, the current wording, " This applies also to attempting to give two names to one article, in the form Name1/Name2, or Name1 (Name2) " is fine too. - Ev 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I added one article ("the" inclusion) and substituted "controverted" by "controversial". But my English is not that good, so I leave any decision on such details entirely to the rest of you :-)
 * There is a shade of difference between "controverted" and "controversial"; the former implies that someone specific is actively disagreeing with the usage, the other can mean merely "widely discussed". But the difference is not worth reverting if you think we should mean "controversial". "The inclusion" is a shade less idiomatic to my ear. But I will think about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was just my faulty English, as I already suspected :-) Thank you very much for the explanation: it's the first time I had come across "to controvert", and even after checking my dictionary I didn't really grasp its meaning. For what it may be worth at this stage, I withdraw both changes. - Ev 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a different specific issue from the other treated in this policy, I would also prefer to place this paragraph in a new "Article names" sub-section, probably after "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" & before "History and rationale".
 * Done, although I put it closer to Fairness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you all think ? Am I overreacting ? - Best regards, Ev 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see how the Mediation goes. This is, so far, a small knot of extremely persistent nationalists; but if the community convinces them to back down, we've done enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: To those participating in this thread, I have modified the newly added "article names" section pending some further input from more participants. The substance of this section is already expressly covered in other pre-existing guidelines and policies, and is also (implicitly) discussed under POV forks in this policy. A good faith reading of the newly added content could be argued as completely consistent with the current policy, but it's a close enough call to justify the following changes: Hope that makes sense. Comments and questions welcomed. dr.ef.tymac 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * reduced novel wording that merits a bit more discussion before inclusion;
 * added pre-existing wording already included in other relevant policies and guidelines;
 * added a direct link to other pages instead of discussing naming at length here; and
 * moved the content closer to the section "POV forks" which this new material recapitulates, but from the perspective of article names.
 * I am happy to have evidence that this thought, as an aspect of neutrality policy, is widely supported; but the present language on "use of synonyms is sometimes justified" is a barn door, through which POV pushers will move their entire case. Can you explain, here or in the text, when synonymy is justified? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the language on double names is a summary of WP:NCGN's language on the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the current version. I second Septentrionalis' concern: this is a clear example of what such wording can lead to. - Regards, Ev 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "barn door" critique is a legitimate one, actually I agree with it. The problem is the "synonym" barn door is part of an existing guideline, one that is widely followed. The guideline states in relevant part:

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term. Thus the article United States can be reached via redirection pages at US, United States of America, America (US), etc.

Omitting this caveat entirely I think misrepresents the depth of this issue for the potential benefit of "closing a barn door." Some might contest that the horse is already out of the barn (and for legitimate reasons). Which is why I included that small part about synonyms. (See also, guideline page). So, if you agree with me that the "one definitive name" rule is not always etched in stone, how do you propose it be fixed? If you do think it is etched in stone, please provide additional support so I can try to understand the basis for this view. dr.ef.tymac 08:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the naming conflict guideline refers to the use of multiple synonyms & acronyms in the body of articles and as titles of redirection pages only. – It merely indicates that, because some circumstances may justify the use of synonyms, other articles are not automatically forced to use the "one definitive name" adopted as title of the corresponding article.


 * If you want to include this to the text, we could add a second paragraph following the clearer wording of the naming conventions on geographic names guideline:


 * “All applicable names, synonyms and acronyms can be used in the titles of redirects. (See Redirect for more on redirection pages.)”


 * However, I would prefer to avoid here any mention of "some circumstances may justify the use of synonyms".
 * Because it doesn't apply to article titles, the limited scope of this sub-section. (It could be included in another sub-section on "NPOV & consistency within Wikipedia").
 * Because it would give nationalist editors an excuse to say that only article titles should follow common English usage, and that the body of articles should use the "real, correct, right, true, legitimate, unbiased" term they are pushing for.
 * Otherwise, we could use three or four paragraphs to clearly delimitate which circumstances justify the use of synonyms. This may be usefull in a "NPOV & consistency within Wikipedia" sub-section, but not in this one. In the end, the sad reality is that the wording should not rely either on common sense or on assumptions of good faith (again, see this...). - Best regards, Ev 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirects was the only point I was attempting to make about synonyms. As far as your point about the wording should not rely ... on common sense that sounds like an argument in favor of getting rid of WP:AGF, and an argument against people who disagree with you on a particular article.
 * Although I do not dispute your right to make that argument, clearly we run into problems if we use re-wording of a WP policy page for the purpose of addressing pending disputes, especially when it has the net result of contradicting other existing policies or guidelines. This seems like exactly the kind of proposal that belongs on Village pump.
 * I have every confidence in the appropriateness of your motives, but let's remember the proviso: Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.
 * It seems to strain credibility to assert that redirects do not apply to article titles, that seems to be precisely what they apply to. United_States.


 * I want to re-emphasize again that I agree with the basic points you are making. That's precisely why I carefully re-worded to ensure consistency with a good-faith reading of the existing terms already in the policy.


 * In any event, I still think this issue can be resolved with minimal modification, which should always be the goal for changes to a core policy, especially when the only input has come from a few users who all pretty much share the same opinion on a matter that is under dispute. I will attempt another modification so we can (hopefully) consider this resolved. dr.ef.tymac 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see; the "synonyms" are the other names from which we should have redirects. I have no problem with that, in fact I agree it should be policy; and have added half a sentence to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we were just talking past one another because the wording I first added had that ambiguity that you correctly pointed out. I was actually in the middle of a re-wording when you posted this, which aguments the half-sentence addition you made. I went ahead and added it. Let me know if this still has any problems. dr.ef.tymac 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy with the current version. Dreftymac, although I now see I wasn't as clear as I thought, we're talking about the same thing, and I fully agree with every detail of your last post :-) As I mentioned above, this additional sub-section is redundant: the idea is not to modify any aspect of the policy whatsoever, but merely to re-state in clear terms what is already covered by policies and guidelines, as well as common Wikipedia practice.


 * All I want is that the next time "neutrality" is used to push for double titles, I or any other user may reply by just linking to this clearly-worded new sub-section, instead of spending time and effort in long and often futile explanations of how NPOV works, as was the case with "Shatt al-Arab" or "Kosovo/Kosova". - Best regards, Ev 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific
The page says: "Scientific- favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason." What does that mean? That 'favoring a scientist, inventor or theory for scientific reasons' is NPOV? I don't check wikipedia that often but for me this is a new addition. Isn't all of science a 'point of view'? And shouldn't that point of view be favoured if wikipedia hopes to educate people?--80.56.36.253 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific v. Religious POVs: What exactly do we mean by pseudoscience
Based on discussions involved in the Creationism and similar articles, I've been acting under an assumption that WP:NPOV expressly requires neutrality between scientific and expressly non-scientific points of view. I've perceived this as different from conflicts between science and pseudoscience. I've understood "pseudoscience" in a fairly narrow sense, to refer only to viewpoints that claim to reflect a scientific point of view. (By this definition, if a view claims to be scientific, its scientific status should be determined by scientists). However, in conflicts between scientific and expressly non-scientific POVs, e.g. religion -- between empirical and a priori or revelatory ways of knowing -- I've been under the impression that NPOV requires stating both the scientific and non-scientific, and lets scientists judge whether religious beliefs are "scientific" (and theologians judge whether scientific claims are consistent with the relevant religion) -- but neither side gets a veto over the other POV's claims to "truth". Thus the policy permits scientists to have firm control over what is called science, but that's all it permits -- NPOV treatment of science prevents Wikipedia from endorsing the view that science is the only possible route to truth or that scientific claims should be regarded as fact in preference to other ways of knowing. Thus, under this interpretation, the article on Noah's Ark should include that biblical literalists believe the flood existed because of their reliance on the belief that the Bible is a factual account, while scientists generally don't (because of their reliance on the scientific method). Similarly, Wikipedia can say that anthropologists generally regard the account as a myth, but Wikipedia can't itself in editorial voice say the account is a myth. And I've understood this distinction to be critically important and essential to what NPOV is about, because ultimately people get to decide whether they prefer to believe the theologians or the anthropologists.

However, I've often encountered the view that any claim about the physical world or historical events is either science or "pseudoscience" -- there is no other way of knowing about the world other than the two categories science and pseudoscience (thought of as sense vs. nonsense) -- and from this POV religious beliefs about Noah's Ark (and any other claim believed as factual truth) represent "pseudoscience" and Wikipedia can use its editorial voice to call them myths and declare them wrong.

What precisely do we mean by "pseudoscience" for WP:NPOV purposes? Do we mean the narrow sense of something that claims to be scientifically based, so that Arbcom's decision means scientists get to control whether something is called "science", but not whether it's ultimately true? Or does "pseudoscience" refer to any claim to factual truth which most scientists believe incorrect, so that scientists get to say, not just whether a claim is scientific, but whether it is true (and ArbCom's decision about "pseudoscience" would apply to all claims to factual truth including claims about the truth of religious beliefs?) Best, --Shirahadasha 15:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If we aren't actually taking the second point of view, would suggest an explicit clarification the definition of "Scientific Bias" -- currently "favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason" -- and adding "or the scientific method as the only method of knowing reality vs. religious, moral, aesthetic, or other notable approaches." --Shirahadasha 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Shirahadasha, just curious, do you know if this specific topic has been covered somewhere in the discussion archives, ArbCom proceedings or Village Pump? This whole topic of "pseudoscience and NPOV" is a messy can of worms and it seems to merit a strong deference to precedent, if any has been set. My gut instinct is to consider this whole dilemma a false dichotomy, but to seriously discuss it invites the same sort of ontological tarpit that developed out of the whole "what is truth" discussion (link needed). dr.ef.tymac 20:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Arbcom decision on pseudscience is here. The principle labeled "neutral point of view as applied to science" states:


 * 1a) Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.


 * I interpret "alternatives to scientific orthodoxy" as referring to a view claiming to be legitimate science which most scientists disagree with (pseudoscience in the 'narrow' sense above). In determining whether something is really science scientific grounds are used. The language does not strike me as requiring a worldview in which anything which is not science is classed as pseudoscience. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As to past discussions on these pages, see here, which itself refers to earlier discussions. The issue seems to have been discussed, but never resolved. Note that Village Pump policy discussions are permanently deleted after 14 days. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Ok, thanks much for the links. A good-faith reading of the ArbCom decision seems to support your scope of pseudoscience interpretation. Moreover, it seems consistent with what one would reasonably expect considering the general breadth and variety of WP article subjects.


 * I think the only real question here (unless someone out there wishes to dispute the accuracy of your interpretation) is what are the specific clarifications you have in mind. I mention this because it was not entirely clear (to me anyway) from the first reading of this thread, and because the potential controversy of this area is strong enough to justify a high degree of care so as to avoid inconsistency and minimize risk of misinterpretation. Also, I wonder what specific momentum there is to justify additional attention to this issue, considering the outcome of the previous discussion. dr.ef.tymac 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would give a fourfold differentiation: Difficulties everywhere. E.g. there is some minor slam dunk going in denouncing string theory to be pseudoscience. Then the "pseudoscience" debates often suffer from participants with an overdose of Popper. Wikipedia decisions whether something is pseudoscience, are often (and IMHO better) done by more pragmatic criteria, as "is it taught in universities?" --Pjacobi 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus in a field, or the most widely supported POV following a scientific method, e.g. String theory
 * Minority position in science, e.g. Loop quantum gravity
 * Pseudoscience, something claiming to be science, but failing some of several criteria, e.g. http://www.aetherometry.com
 * POVs which don't claim to be science, but instead originate in religion, "common sense", superstition, etc
 * Your outline is useful, but the following still merit clarification:
 * are you implying that religious and superstitious doctrines (which are taught in universities) fall within your rubric of "pseudoscience"?
 * if yes to the above, are you expressly disputing the interpretation offered by Shirahadasha?
 * are you proposing a clarification to the wording of the NPOV policy itself?
 * Absent clear responses to the previous, (it is humbly suggested that) a productive discussion on how and whether to proceed on this matter is likely to remain cumbersome and unproductive. dr.ef.tymac 07:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of theology and religious is science, following the scientific method e.g. for using textual criticism to analyze the scriptures, using methods of history, etc. Some part is just dissemination of doctrine. But I don't think that at universities (outside some part of the US) the biblical literalist view explicitely denying the results of science is taught.
 * If I don't understand his view, yes, I'm disputing the evidence of Shirahadasha.
 * For example legitimate science which most scientists disagree with (pseudoscience in the 'narrow' sense above) is a completely wrong identification.
 * Again, IMHO pragmatism rules. After studying some amount of some philosophy you may argue, that nothing exist outside your mind. That shouldn't let you make cross a street without caring for cars, as they "don't exist". Or otherwise you may eliminated from the gene pool.
 * So, if you want to construct something complicated, like a VLSI chip, whom would you consult: Scientists and engineers? Some USENET crackpot? Ancient philosophy? The bible? -- Nothing against ancient philosophy and the bible, they have their value and should have their coverage in Wikipedia, but that doesn't imply their view should be "weighted" in matters of science and engineering.
 * Pjacobi 07:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fundamental pragmatism of your views, although considerable, I don't think are within the appropriate scope of this discussion. This is precisely the rationale for my request for support from ArbCom decisions (for wording, rationale, precedent, scope, etc.) You and I personally probably agree on a lot of things, but personal inclinations alone should not form the basis of policy changes, *especially* in areas as nuanced and contraverted as this. dr.ef.tymac 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy doesn't change by changing its description in the policy pages. At least it is not intended so. --Pjacobi 09:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And another: In matters of science, the so called "scientific point of view" is the neutral point view. International academia throws more resources (work, skill, money) at solving open questions and disputes, than we can ever do. It is pure arrogance to think we can do better and give a "more neutral" exposition. Wikipedia isn't the appeal court of the scientific process.
 * And that's essentially the same assessment as given by ArbCom in Pseudoscience.
 * Pjacobi 09:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really "scientific point of view" is just a non-NPOV. Can ArbCom usurp a Pillar of Wikipedia? ... I let others answer that ... "SPOV" is a POV disguised, defended, and apologized for ... JIMO J. D. Redding 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, Pjacobi, you are introducing considerations that are well beyond the scope of this discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the fourfold definition - according to a number of philosophical views, fields such as logic and mathematics use methods that rely on deduction from axioms rather than induction from evidence, and hence don't use the scientific method to reach concluisons. How would they be placed? (Also, how would fields that often use part observation and part assumption or intuition, such as ethics or aesthetics, be placed?) I ask this not to get a definite answer, but to suggest that attempts to formulate knowledge in terms of scientific thought v. thought perceived as non-serious (common sense, superstition, etc.) may not adequately capture the richness of human thought or ways of reaching conclusions about reality.
 * Regarding the formulation 'In matters of science', the so called scientific point of view" is the neutral point view"- Respectfully, depending on whether one takes a broad or a narrow view of what is meant by "matters of science," I believe this statement could be consistent with either the broad or the narrow approach in my original question (and perhaps other approaches as well). Accordingly, it's not clear to me this statement gives me any more guidance on how to proceed than existed previously. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Often the scientific point of view is consensus of the sources; to use an example that came up in the last section, Figure of the Earth has no need to mention the Flat Earth Society; doing so as more than a See Also would be undue weight, and the only defense of the See Also is that the Society may interest readers of the article; yet a flat earth is the "common sense" view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious opinions on scientific subjects should be treated similarly to superstitious and common sense opinions on scientific subject, and not as minority science or pseudo-science.--80.56.36.253 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Religious opinions on scientific subjects are irrelevent and should be ignored. Doc  Tropics  22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Who exactly are the closed minded one here? You should be ignored. Ymous 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that what we mean by a "scientific subject" isn't clear. Perhaps a specific example would help. I made this statement last month on Talk:Noah's Ark:


 * The question of whether the account given in the Bible is true or not would appear to be the matter in dispute, and the essence of WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia can't have an opinion on such a matter. Historians, archeologists, etc. tend to have one opinion, certain religious scholars another. Wikipedia can only discuss the narrative as described in the text, then identify the different opinions. Different approaches use different methods to make sense of reality and attempt to ascertain what is true. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia can't tell the reader which one to believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this an accurate application of NPOV? Best, --Shirahadasha 06:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've stated it pretty clearly. Also, you've touched on a critical aspect of these types of discussions: they can go on forever unless you introduce a specific example, but then, when you do introduce an example, it is very difficult for most people to discuss the underlying principles without diverging into a debate on the underlying merits of the factual claims. This is even true among accredited scientists, let alone forums for people of every concievable ideology. dr.ef.tymac 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Shirahadasha, your summary of the Noah's Ark situation was excellent. I believe that it was indeed a very accurate application of NPOV. In fact, it is possibly one of the best explanations I've seen for how to apply the principle to the actual editing of an article. PS - apologies that my previous comment in this section was non-responsive; there had just been an eruption of religion in several science articles that I work on, and I was on a bit of a rant. Good luck to you, and happy editing : ) Doc  Tropics  16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, as explained in detail on my userpage, I have been boycotting Wikipedia contributions for the past month because of the NPOV vs. SPOV dispute over at Noah's Ark. It seems that SPOV won out over NPOV at that article, as symbolized by the enforcement of the "mythological ships" category that was created solely fo the purposes of POV-pushing.
 * In short, there are a number of competing world-views, or what we might call POVs in the world. No one of these competing world views can rightly claim a monopoly on human thought, philosophy, or understanding about the unknowable things.  There are five majorly significant quadrants to the world of comparative religion, and these are: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. Each of these five is large enough to be the "doctrine of rule" for whole societies and even the official State religion for sovereign governments.  To these may be added Marxism and Maoism as "doctrines of rule" found among world governments, although their status as "religions" is more controversial.  The essence of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that we remain NEUTRAL between these competing world views and describe them all wherever applicable, but without declaring any of them to be either "True" or "false".  Traditionally in the field of Comparative religion, the sacred books of LIVING religions are never referred to by the pejorative "mythology", this term is reserved for those religions that are no longer practised by any significant number of people who might object, such as Grek or Norse mythology.  However, the NPOV policy is being flouted at Noah's Ark - even though this story is considered very real by believers in the accounts of the Ark in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Bahai Scriptures, the Yezidi scriptures and the Mandaean Scriptures, a team of scientists who admit they have no background in Comparative Religion has usurped the article and on the talk page loudly voiced their opinion that the entire field of "Religion", whether living or dead, should be subsumed into that of "mythology", simply because it is "unscientific, and moreover, that those who practice any religion are simply "insignificant" no matter how numerous they may be, simply  because these "scientists" have declared them wrong and therefore SPOV = NPOV. This is a tricky situation, I was actually blocked by admins sympathetic to SPOV merely for adding a dispute tag over the "mythology category" question, and I was summarily informed that I had no right to dispute the neutrality of a featured article.  It is for this reason that I have quit my contributions to wikipedia in disgust until such time as it takes steps to rectify this POV travesty. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CS, no. You don't understand the NPOV policy. It is not our job to present all points of view as equally valid, as that is not what NPOV is. NPOV is reporting from a neutral point of view. Presenting all points of view as equally valid is in complete, total, and utter contradiction to the NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not censored. Living religions should not recieve preferential treatment, and in any event, what you mean by living religion is your fundamentalist idealogy. Again, you're being disruptive. The fact of the matter is that any NPOV treatment of Noah's Ark, the great deluge, and such, should make it clear that it is not only a part of Abrahamic mythology (which it is, and I don't think there are many who'd dispute that), but also that it never actually happened (because it didn't and every article on the ancient world takes that for granted). Presenting that it did happen is POV, and is not neutral. We can say some people believe it happened, and should, in fact, say as much. However, we should not say it did happen. This is the fundamental misunderstanding many people have about NPOV. Just because you think the Earth is flat does not mean that it should be said that the Earth is flat in the Earth article.
 * Your opposition to the mythological ships category is flat out unjustified, especially given the existance of the category of Abrahamic mythology. This has been explained to you before, and you still don't get it. It isn't an attack on your religion or your beliefs to label something mythological. Titanium Dragon 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For you to come to the NEUTRALITY page and falsely accuse me of having a "fundamentalist ideology" has to be the most unmitigated gall I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I have never ever ONCE acted on behalf of a fundamentalist ideology of any description, because I have none.  Please keep your incessant ad hominem, personal attacks and psychobabble to yourself, Titanium Dragon. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the approach above, as I understand it, the Bible and various religious scholars say it happened whereas geological/archaelogical research etc. says it didn't happen. Hence, if one uses a literal approach to the Bible as ones principle source of factual information one will believe it happened, but if one uses geological/archeological research etc. as ones principle source one will believe it didn't. Doubtless most Wikipedia editors have strong beliefs one way or the other and may feel strong discomfort with the very idea of even giving the other side a platform. But WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia presents both sides and can't ultimately tell people which kind of information to believe. This makes Wikipedia different from many other encyclopedias, where a scientific POV is more directly favored. What Wikipedia can do is insist that scientists have the final say on what is science (and theologians on what a religion's beliefs are). Hence while Wikipedia can't tell people not to believe the Bible, it can say that a particular viewpoint has been found not to have a scientific basis. The distinction between "not supported by science" and "not true" may seem a subtlety, but it is important to maintaining WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A scientific point of view is also a neutral point of view. Science is the same to everyone. It doesn't matter what language you speak, what cultural background you have, what world view you have, a scientific experiment has the same results for everyone. Therefore it is truly neutral. Wikipedia is written by many amateurs and laymen. If wikipedia is to educate it needs to favour those people that bring in high levels of knowledge. So yes, the fact that wikipedia doesn't favour science so much is true, but it is also by far the biggest weakness of wikipedia. It keeps quality down. Do we really want a low quality political correct encyclopedia?--80.56.36.253 01:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Science is the same to everyone?' lol, no indeed, science is full of conflicting hypotheses - and has undeniably been put to evil ends often. There was "Nazi science", "Soviet science", and many other kinds of science, and these did not agree with one another, different governments and different schools accept entirely different notions about what constitutes "science" ie "knowledge", there is even even traditional Chinese or traditional African "science" and different language speakers have different bodies of knowledge, just as not all mankind speaks the same language, just as all language wikipedias are unique, not synchronized and unlikely ever to be, thus there are areas of science some governments may have more familiarity with and others in others.  It's anything but "the same to everyone" in reality. 70.105.50.115 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How can i get an accusation of advertising alert message removed from a page?
I have done a major edit on a page Warwick_Manufacturing_Group following a new corporate identity for the group. It has been tagged with an alert message accusing it of being advertising. I have made some changes and put an apology in the discussion area. But the alert is still there. What can i do to get it removed? This is the first major edit I've done so I would be very grateful for some help from more experienced editors. Thanks Zoehoward 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the article and left some comments for you in the talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is impossible
It's very important for every major project to be founded with the thouth-out phylosophical concept.

Unfortunately, the majority of the people who use Internet, are westerners. To me, being non-westerner, every second historical or political article represents a clear WPOV. Eg., Apostle Peter wasn't a Pope of Rome, yet, the page with list of Popes claims otherwise. There are as much of examples... Of course, I can't do anything with that, because the wikipedia commnity have western education, western mind, western values. And, what's especially bad, the west always tried, and still tries, to represent their values as universal ones. Especially these dangerous and spiritually wrong things like neoliberalism, protestant ethic and so on. These aren't mine. And I guess that NPOV thing is another way of spreading western propaganda around. Unfortunately, also it's very hard to make someone who are grown up in another culture to understand the people of other culture. Also, some things, like spiritual parts of life, aren't visible to many of human beings. There are some westerners, like Oswald Spengler, who were able to understand and respect other civilizations, but not many. QuestPc 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your efforts my be better spent with WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Although I find your statements contradictory - stating what is dangerous or spiritually wrong (or even that spirituality at all is right).  I'd love to see the mind pretzel that would ensue after reading Atlas Shrugged.  Anyway...  There are other policies that go into practice with NPOV such as WP:WEIGHT.  "All things are possible until they are proved impossible - and even the impossible may only be so, as of now." &mdash; Pearl Buck (1892 - 1973);  Morphh   (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm being a working family man and I don't have too much time to spend my efforts elsewhere. There are many books on phylosophy, the point is what they are trying to achieve. The human happiness, but define happiness and freedom. In the west both are wrong defined - the happiness is drugs (escape from real world), the freedom is "liberty" - escaping from being real person - a father or a mother, instead being liberal homosexual. The majority can well be manipulated, so current state of "democracy" (especially here in Russia, but to some extend in the west as well) is more remnicsent of Plutocracy. So if that's WP:WEIGHT is a kind of voting - sorry it wouldn't work at all. Nothing will help. I am don't even trying to be neutral - it's laughable and impossible thing. Lots and lots of articles here aren't neutral, such as Kosovo conflict and so on. Also, BTW, neolibaralism is also a power of corporations, which methods of work are far away from democracy. They impose very strict regulations on their staff. They will work with anything for money - they love China, no matter how much you cry about Chinesse human rights violations.So much for western pseudo-democracy. QuestPC 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Western machinegy and logic thought is great, yet, when you look at human habits and ordinary life - all is horrible. You forget the words of Blaise Pascal that logic have very little value to real human life (look what great brains had the west - like Pascal, Hehel, Spengler and so on - yet you don't even follow works of your own geniuses..). All your modern life is about "success", "competition", "being tough" - useless silly attempts to praise yourself. Everything is about enforcing western styles of lives to the rest of the world - who gave you right to do so? Just every aspect of life - let's say women rights. They are treated incorrectly as woman should become like man - stop bearing childs, being violent, going for mythical "success" and so on. These are male vaules! Western world is a world of males and females that are forced to behave like males.. Western mass culture is horrible - it's used to brainwash majority of population - we already see it here in Russia. QuestPC 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

@ QuestPC: Thanks for sharing your opinions, in the future, could you please consider putting these sorts of observations into an Essay? You can write this in your user space and then come here and give people a link. This will help a lot. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 14:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreftymac, the problem with this is that you are now asking for an essay, which is in the realm of western, educated, academic elite. What happens to societies where essay's aren't the norm? Or for people who haven't had the training in essay writing? You're putting the essay-writing-populace as the NPOV, and this is clearly not neutral. QuestPC is right, there is no NPOV. The very idea is based upon the western modern philosophy of objectivity, which postmodern philosophy has undermined. Indeed, NPOV is a fraud and a way of holding power over those who do not hold your POV. If you want 'credible' references for this (from your beloved academic elites) then look to Foucault, Wittgenstein, Arendt, Nietzsche, any Feminist Philosopher, and many many others. NPOV is not possible and perpetuates a dangerous myth that legitimates the rich elite exploiting the poor. Wikipedia is contributing to this in its naïve attachment to a non-existent, impossible NPOV. It should remove this ideology or admit its oppressive, evil nature. thugsb 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone already suggested here sometime ago that MPOV (multiple points of view, with pro's and con's) is more objective. I'd also suggest Erich Fromm as alternative to neoliberalism. I'd put neoliberalism to the list of totalitarian ideologies, which are especially dangerous because they are trying to hide their true exploiting intentions. But I guess that it's too hard to change the policy of such huge project, like Wikipedia, also every society have their myths, which are very strong and die usually only when the socity/civilization dies completely. So, I'm perfectly aware that my thread is useless. Future will teach humans. QuestPC 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy sections
Are criticism and controversy sections in articles in harmony with the principles of NPOV? Isn't it a form of undue weight to highlight negative views of the subject? It is my opinion that the answer to both questions is a resounding "Yes". I believe the best resolution would be to delete the section and merge the material into the article with the rest of the information. What do people think? Vassyana 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was an attempt to codify this in Criticism, Vassyana, but it failed to gain support to become a guideline. But I agree that merging is a better option in most cases. See below.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)



There are instances when seperate principles fail to become a rule of their own but are incorporated into appropriate guidelines and policies. Jimbo's comment exactly expresses my concern and desired resolution. The Manual of Style also supports the position that seperate criticism sections are bad form (at best). It should be noted the relevent section of the MoS refers to NPOV. We have a consensus reading of NPOV (MoS is a guideline) that advises against seperate criticism sections. We have Jimbo explicitly stating they are "a symptom of bad writing" and that the information should "be properly incorporated throughout the article". Unless there are serious objections, the NPOV page should be changed to reflect existing consensus and Jimbo's statement. Vassyana 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection

 * Strong and serious objection: The conclusory and simplistic statement: "a criticism section is a symptom of bad writing" ignores the most prevalent and obvious constraints associated with a collaborative editing project that has essentially no entry barriers (other than access to a computer that happens to be connected to the internet). This simplistic view might be tenable in rare circumstances where one or a few people have the authority to exercise complete editorial control over content, but that is clearly not the case with the vast majority of WP content.


 * It's nice to imagine that "we should all just get along" and contribute to the project in a manner that reflects the absolute highest ideals of English composition and stylistic refinement, but let's get real. For some articles, the plain fact is that there are many who consider *any* criticism at all (or conversely, any favorable treatment) to be completely irrelevant (even if well-researched, substantiated with reliable sources, and non-inflammatory).


 * I have personally burned through a lot of time simply to get balanced content (both pro *and* con) into articles before. Trying to condense it all into unified prose can be a monumental pain, because every neophyte editor with an axe to grind feels the irresistible compulsion to add a series of "yes X is true BUT Y" ... "but also Y is just a load of B.S. to obfuscate Z" ... "but then again, no one really takes Z seriously anyway, except ... blah blah blah."


 * The end result is a desultory melange of obviously disjointed text in which each clause is clearly the work of multiple editors with an obvious "side" in the debate. The absolute *worst* kind of writing one can imagine for an Encyclopedia is the kind where a reader can easily guess which words were added by which contributor, and which "side" that contributor was on. This is anathema to the spirit and letter of NPOV, and sometimes the only way to credibly resolve the matter is to segregate the contentious portions into more than one "section" each.


 * I don't like it any more than you do, but sometimes the level of dedication and maturity of contributors is simply not consistently high enough to merit a wholesale discrediting of this "segregational" editorial tactic. dr.ef.tymac 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what you describe only applies to an extreme minority of articles. Additionally, I personally find appeals to the lowest common denominator to be repulsive. We must not only assume, but expect and demand a certain level of restraint and maturity. I agree that obvious POV editing is anathema to the project and NPOV. However, I cannot fathom how highlighting those POVs at all resolves the issue, instead of exacerbating it. We cannot shy away from implementing and enforcing standards because we might believe some people cannot hold themselves to those standards. Vassyana 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, the remark about appealing to "the lowest common denominator" is at best a non-sequitur, and at worst a woefully deficient disregard of the most readily apparent evidence revealed by even the most *trivial* efforts to reform WP content for style, neutrality and consistency. The evidence is clear ... *precious few* WP contributors exhibit the highest degrees of dispassionate detached professionalism necessary to make this proposal work. A blanket repudiation of "criticism sections" is just not tenable given the universality and openness that is at the very foundation of WP:


 * we're providing access to the sum of human knowledge   ... Jimmy_Wales
 * our success ... entirely a function of our open community ... User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles
 * the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the long-term success ... (Ibid.)


 * Like I said, I am not happy about this, I like it probably less than you, but the proof is in the pudding, and I will provide you with an example to substantiate what I am saying. dr.ef.tymac 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific example to back up objection
Case in point: a specific example to substantiate the strong and serious objection.


 * People like to have tangible proof, so I hasten to provide you with a case in point: XML. Technology articles have a strong tendency toward partisanship, and the effort required to tone down the rhetoric on both "sides" of the fence should not be underestimated. Consider the following:


 * this is what the article looked like prior to improvement.
 * notice here that editors were following the "incorporate rather than segregate" strategy and turning the "criticism section" into a "discussion board" of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals (the "support" section remained unsullied, because the vast majority of contributors were partisans on the "pro" side, surprise-surprise!)
 * the discussion page includes a compelling and justifiable explanation for why the pre-improvement version was next to useless. Someone wanted a quick review of "pros and cons" and the "discussion board" wasn't cutting it.
 * this is the current version of the relevant text XML.
 * Notice how the content is: a) easily scannable; b) entirely free of duplicative and superfluous remarks (something that was difficult to even *detect* in the pre-improved version); and c)nearly entirely supported by citations.


 * Now seriously, I ask you, which one looks better? Which looks more useful to someone who doesn't care about partisanship, and just wants a no-bull summary that is objective and concise (and allows them to get on with their life)?
 * Before? OR
 * After?

Quick summary of objection
To repeat:


 * I cannot state this emphatically enough:
 * A separated criticism section does not necessarily always equate with "bad writing";
 * Even if we assume that such sections *do* always equate with "less than absolutely stellar writing" that does not constitute an appeal to the "lowest common denominator";
 * We should not let hypothetical ideals force the "Excellent" to become the enemy of the "Good"; and
 * Even if we ignore all the evidence to the contrary, there is simply no substantiation for the assertion that a repudiation of "criticism sections" will result in an improvement of writing in WP articles (let alone a meteoric rise to the standard of "universal excellence"). dr.ef.tymac 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(redent) The lowest common denominator comment was not a non-sequitur. Appealing to a lack of maturity and self-discipline is certainly setting the mark low. Your rationale applies equally well to most of our policies and guidelines. If few enough editors are not professional, dispassionate and/or mature enough to simply integrate criticism as other facts and views, I'd say the project is equally doomed. (Please note that reports of Wikipedia's impending death on similar grounds have been greatly exagerrated.)

On your example, it does little to support the point you're trying to make. The editors were not trying to integrate rather than segegrate. There was a seperate criticism section and it became quite bloated. Your example demonstrates that such sections can be cleaned up, but reveals nothing about the difficulty of integrating the material into the article without a seperate section. Additionally, it's still a reasonable example of what is wrong with segrating such data. It still draws attention to material obviously written by pro and con editors. It's a bullet list instead of proper writing. It's a loosely collected set of facts with little to no context. So, the seperate section is still bad writing. The individual statements may be nice and squeaky, but it's still bad writing, as writing is more than making individually nice statements.

I fail to how see my proposal would make excellant the enemy of good. Where is "all the evidence to the contrary"? So far, the evidence you've shown demonstrates that even when cleaned up nicely, segregated sections for criticism still result in poor writing. Vassyana 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana's (apparent agreement with dr.ef.tymac?)

 * Let's slow down for a minute here, because you seem to be vehemently and vociferously making *precisely* my point; agreeing with me, while simultaneously (although surely unintentionally) mischaracterizing my rationale.
 * Agreement 1: I entirely agree with you: well-integrated and unified prose is an attribute of good writing, and is probably a necessary characteristic of any writing that aspires to the absolute highest levels of credibility and professionalism;
 * Agreement 2: You also seem to agree with me that the "After" example I gave was an improvement relative to the "Before" ... (In your words: what had "become quite bloated" was "cleaned up nicely");
 * Agreement 3: You also seem to agree with me that the text still falls short of the *highest* standard of "well-integrated and unified prose" (the only difference here seems that you summarily dismiss the end-result as "poor" ... whereas, I would say it's "adequate" and "appropriate under the circumstances" discussed below).

Ok. So unless you want to clarify, we do indeed agree at least on some things. Now tell me, where in those points of agreement do you see an "appeal to lack of maturity and self-discipline"? Please go back and re-read. I said the *highest* degrees of professionalism ... I am not saying all (or even most) WP contributors are "immature" ... what I *am* saying is that you've yet to demonstrate that most meet the *highest* standard of what would probably be necessary, in order to attain this *highest* level of quality. Since you are the one forwarding the proposal, you are the one with the burden of proof.

Summary: ''Quality is not a binary determination. Just because something is not "stellar" does not automatically make it "poor". There's always room for improvement.

Flawed assertions by Vassyana
It still draws attention to material obviously written by pro and con editors.
 * Have you even read the article? Every single one of the "disadvantages" is supported by at least one citation to an external source. Most of those sources were written by authors who actually advocate and use XML. I can't think of a better example of balanced use of sources than that. Also, it's neither "pro" nor "con" to say "A hammer is great for pounding nails, but not good for cutting wood" ... that's just the reality and a good summary for people who are unfamiliar with the tool.

It's a bullet list instead of proper writing.
 * So do you propose that "bullet lists" should be deprecated from WP articles as too POV also? -- allowable only on discussion pages? I'm doing my best to see the merit in your viewpoints, but this type of blanket dismissal makes it difficult;

segregated sections for criticism still result in poor writing
 * Even if I strain real hard and take this statement at face value, it does *nothing* to support your original assertion: "Isn't it a form of undue weight to highlight negative views of the subject?" At best, the (tenuous) assertion of "quality" is a matter of style and not one of substantive balance. The two are entirely separate issues.

As I said previously, I don't think the "improvement" is "poor" ... I think it's adequate for the circumstances. XML is a tool, and people who want to learn more about a tool also tend to want to learn what jobs that tool is good for, and what jobs it is not partcularly suited for. I think the same can be said for "Pro and Con" sections in WP articles. They are a tool. A tool for reducing strife, a tool for minimizing bloat, and a tool for reaching compromise when more desirable heights of "quality and refinement" are not within easy reach.

Summary: To universally dismiss this kind of article structure as "inherently POV" and "always poor writing" is manifestly inconsistent with the spirit of openness, flexibility and incremental improvement that has made WP what it is today.

Simple way for Vassyana to win this debate convince dr.ef.tymac
Now comes the good part. I've given you a concrete example (even though I'm not the one with the burden of proof). So now it's your turn. I would be more than happy for you to prove my objections unwarranted. I would be more than happy for you to substantiate your principles, glib generalizations, and theoretic abstractions with with a concrete demonstration:

Please go to the XML article, and take out the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section, and integrate that all into "well-integrated and unified prose". Your modifications must reflect the highest levels of quality and professionalism.

Oh yeah, by the way:
 * you will still have to comply with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V and WP:OR;
 * you will still have to address the concerns of readers who want a "quick summary" so they can fairly and quickly evaluate whether XML is a suitable tool for their next project;
 * you will still have to maintain the standard of "characterizing debates, but not engaging in them";
 * you will still have to make sure to keep an eye on the discussion page to make sure your edits are not considered jarring or otherwise disruptive to people who do not visit WP every day and may not discover your changes until weeks or months hence.

Please get that done ASAP. (Bonus points: you will *really* win me over if you start with the "raw material" of the "Before" version, as the basis of your concrete demonstration.)

dr.ef.tymac 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recap
Is this about "wining a debate"? Or about discussing ways to improve the project? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree &mdash; We do need to come to some type of guideline on this issue... I have readers that request criticism sections on FA articles that already have it well-integrated with unified prose. There are so many articles with criticism sections, not because it is best for the article but because it is easy, that some readers have objections when they don't see one. In most cases, they make for cherry-picking of pro or con points with little context. I agree that some articles should have a criticism section (I've written some myself) but for the most part, they should be discouraged. Morphh   (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to User:Morphh: I have readers that request criticism sections on FA articles that already have it well-integrated with unified prose.


 * If that's the only issue, then we can call it resolved. I entirely support the principle that already well-integrated prose and FA quality should not be disrupted by addition of a "Criticism section". That's *very* different from saying that such sections should be prevented *as a rule*. That's also very different from claiming that such sections are always a reduction in quality. I think we all agree that the end goal should be to move all articles to "good" and then "featured" status. All I am saying is please don't deprive editors of the various tools to make that progress forward. dr.ef.tymac 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out the word "debate" that seemed to cause some dismay. Obviously we're discussing ways to improve. The problem is there's a sticking-point of disagreement. It needs to be resolved. I will repeat: I am simply making a good-faith attempt to understand your position, find common ground, and hopefully be persuaded by whatever may be the merits of your view. dr.ef.tymac 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a debate nor a competition. I was expressing my view of the situation and your responses. This isn't supposed to be about proving anything to anybody. It is supposed to be a discussion. That said, let me address your points. We do agree on points one and two. We do not agree that point two is a change from "poor" to "good". To me, it's a matter of "bad" to "not-so-bad". Point 3, and other similar statements, are where we strongly disagree, I believe. You consider what I propose to be a hallmark of the highest standard of writing, whereas I consider it a basic measure of neutral article structure. I think this is our most fundamental point of disagreement. Your point about the sourcing of the bullet points is quite honestly irrelevant to me. I do not believe it is a concern of the issue at hand. Well-referenced does not mean well-balanced or well-written. I think bullet lists are greatly overused in mainspace. Unless there is a pressing reason, standard prose writing should be used. I cannot understand your assertion that style and substantive balance are not intimately related. Tone of voice, article layout and word choice are example matters of style that directly relate to the neutrality and balance of a given article. As always, this is just my own opinion of that matter. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to move forward

 * This isn't supposed to be about proving anything
 * Vassyana, you've made some theoretical assertions and I'm asking you to substantiate them. It's just that simple. Theoretical assertions and blanket generalizations can go only so far. Credibility and good-faith review calls for a demonstration.


 * We do not agree that point two is a change from "poor" to "good".
 * Huh? I never said you agreed with "change from poor to good". Indeed that's the first time I've even seen that particular wording at all in this discussion. Do you now disavow your previous statement: what had "become quite bloated" was "cleaned up nicely"?


 * I consider it a basic measure of neutral article structure
 * Do you have any substantiation for the (implicit) claim that certain kinds of "article structure" automatically reflect Undue Weight? Do you have any substantiation that "bullet lists" are an instance of both "poor" style" and "Undue Weight"? If this measure is so basic and ordinary, why haven't you provided the demonstration yet?


 * Well-referenced does not mean well-balanced or well-written.
 * Oy vey. Just previously you said this was an issue of a "basic" measure. Basic is not always the same as "well-written". Do you not see that quality is an *incremental and context-specific measure*? Even if well-referenced is not good enough for you, *surely* it's got to be an improvement over "totally unreferenced." Which was precisely the case with the "Before" text in our example.


 * I think bullet lists are greatly overused in mainspace.
 * Greatly overused eh? This must mean they have *some* (even if minimal) legitimate use. Care to name any? Also, have you brought up this concern up at the village pump? If they are so pernicious, I'm sure you can have them taken out of Wikicode.


 * I cannot understand your assertion that style and substantive balance are not intimately related.
 * Again, you've re-worded, I never said that. My point is very simple. Just because an article has stylistic problems *does not automatically mean it fails under Undue Weight or NPOV* ... A very trivial example is a neutral and balanced article that nonetheless has spelling errors and incorrect punctuation; all of which can be corrected without claiming a POV violation.


 * Unless there is a pressing reason, standard prose writing should be used.
 * So are you saying that adding references to totally unreferenced and "bloated" article text; bringing an end to tedious 'in-article' cross-rebuttals; and addressing specific concerns discussed on a Talk page are not "pressing reasons"? Can you provide an example of what you meant by pressing reasons?


 * Vassyana, as you said, this is supposed to be a discussion. I've conceded that some of your points have (or may have) merit, and I've gone out of my way to find common ground and points of agreement with you. I've even backed up my assertions by reference to an example from a specific article, so that this discussion has at least some basis in practicality.


 * In contrast, you've given entirely unfavorable assessments of the good-faith work of other WP contributors; you've emphasized exclusively negative aspects in the example; you've re-worded some of my discussion points, and then disagreed with the re-worded version; you've given plenty examples pronouncements of what fails to meet your standards, but no improvements other than theoretic guidelines; and you've provided lots of opinion (which is of course welcome) but *zero* concrete demonstration. How can consensus and compromise emerge from such a pattern of "discussion" as this?


 * Please, help demonstrate that this is in fact a discussion, and not just someone handing down opinions from on high. Can you please show how "basic" your point really is with a good-faith and practical demonstration?

This seems like a very reasonable request and a practical way to move forward. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Web specifications aren't really my area of interest or expertise. However, I am very familiar with religious studies and active in dispute resolution. You can review a draft I made for Fellowship of Friends. You can review the [history] to see how I went about it. You can also see on the article talk page that this integration received wide support. This includes support from those who opposed such a merge based on various concerns. That particular article obviously needs more improvement overall, but it is a good faith and practical demonstration of merging criticism sections and the support it can receive even from recalcitrant editors.


 * I have never said, nor implied, that bulleting is such a problem that it should be removed from wikicode. All I said, was that in my opinion they are overused in mainspace. Bullet lists would be appropriate for a list of books written in an author's article, or a discography in an artist's article. However, bullet lists should be used for just that ... lists. Neutral, plain content lists are an appropriate use. Back and forth between pro and con, criticism and praise, et al are the kinds of things that should be given context in normal prose writing. In your statements you clearly and plainly asserted that style and substantive balance "are entirely separate issues", so I replied to that assertion. Sorry if I misunderstood you. And no, those are not pressing reasons, most importantly because it is a misrepresentation of what occurred. There were no "tedious[sic] 'in-article' cross-rebuttals". There were rebuttals and bloat in an already separate section. Cleanup is good, please do not get me wrong. However, just because one aspect was improved, does not mean other aspects should be ignored. Vassyana 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the claim that criticism sections are a form of undue balance, it is self-apparent to me. Section titles frame content and readers' expectations. If we create a section with a title that frames content and expectations towards general negative reporting on the subject, how is that not undue balance? By giving special treatment and highlighting to critical claims about the subject, how is that not moving outside the bounds of a neutral point of view? It seems very plain and obvious to me, based on those question-observations. Vassyana 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana's perspectives

 * Web specifications aren't really my area of interest or expertise.
 * By that I assume you are referring to XML. Does this mean you will not honor my specific request? Is this because you have insufficient familiarity with the subject matter? Remember, this core policy applies to *all* articles (not just the ones which hold your personal interest).


 * However, I am very familiar with religious studies and active in dispute resolution.
 * it is a good faith and practical demonstration of merging criticism sections and the support it can receive
 * That's good, I applaud your initiative and your level of involvement in that particular primary subject area. As you know, there are many other primary subject areas in WP as well. Each with its own nuances and core contributors.


 * I also applaud when contributors can emphasize practical considerations and examples, instead of forwarding solely unsubstantiated personal opinions and "Jimbo Says".


 * Sorry if I misunderstood you.
 * No problem, apology accepted. I might add it also helps to refrain from implications that other people have "misrepresented" facts, given that reasonable people can see things differently, and especially since "misinterpretation" and "alternate viewpoints" are clearly at play here.


 * As for the claim that criticism sections are a form of undue balance, it is self-apparent to me.
 * "Self-apparent to me" is not a sufficient basis for fundamental changes to core policy; especially given the nuances involved here, and given that the issue is far from unambiguous for *all* articles. Additionally, I think we should *all* be very circumspect to propose policy changes when it could be interpreted as enhancing one's own position in a recent dispute. Some might unfairly dismiss it as self-serving, thus undermining the authoritativeness of WP policy. At very least, such changes should not hinge primarily on personal opinion.


 * By giving special treatment and highlighting to critical claims about the subject, how is that not moving outside the bounds of a neutral point of view?
 * This is conclusory and begging the question. The same goes for all of the other "question-observations" (oxymoron). How are these not personal opinions posed in the form of questions?

Proposed conclusion
The views expressed by Vassyana have some merit, and I've already expressed agreement on some basic principles. The problem is so far we only have personal opinion and conjecture to answer serious considerations:
 * no one has shown that certain kinds of article structure are *always* an NPOV violation, for *all* article subjects, and for *all* phases of the article development lifecycle;
 * no one has shown that the issues raised require more attention than is already given in the manual of style and elsewhere;
 * no one has shown that Vassyana has thoroughly considered the implications, and can demonstrate the consequences that would occur to articles and situations outside the scope of Vassyana's personal "interest and expertise";
 * no one has shown that "consensus" on this matter is entirely unambiguous one way or the other.

Consider the following:


 * "I was looking for the pros and cons ..." (independent remark by User:Theshowmecanuck here);
 * Pro & con lists considered harmful;
 * We already have Template:Criticism-section.
 * We already have Template:POV-section.
 * "Criticism that is integrated ... should not disrupt the article" This is often why separate criticism sections are created.
 * Vassyana cites evidence of past success (in one area of personal experience):
 * but *no* evidence that these personal experiences are the *only* path to improvement, or that these personal experiences should be made the universal policy that all must follow.
 * this past success even substantiates that "practical examples plus considerable effort" (as I've been emphasizing all along) is in fact more effective than appeals based on conjecture and generalizations:
 * THIS IS GREAT! Vassyana, you put a tremendous amount of work into this. (User:Moon Rising )
 * I am glad my example draft was able to satisfy concerns about merging the information. (User:Vassyana)

Put this all to rest with an example draft
People should generally be reluctant to modify policy, even (or perhaps especially) if it favors their viewpoint in a recent or pending dispute. I also think there are more nuances and subtleties to this specific issue, than presented by Vassyana, and I think some of my views have been woefully misunderstood and mischaracterized.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to accept a draft proposal to address the issue raised by Vassyana for inclusion in this policy. Here are some caveats:


 * It definitely seems like more people from different "sides" should have some input on this;
 * Any addition to this policy must be very concise (unlike this discussion thread);
 * Any addition to this policy must reflect that the issue is not always "very plain and obvious" (as based on personal opinion); and
 * Any addition to this policy should reflect the nuances of *all major viewpoints* ... and not universally disparage certain kinds of article structure as "always in violation of NPOV".

It seems appropriate to continue to strongly oppose and object to any proposal that falls short of these, unless supported by a clear and substantial response of consensus from a wide range of WP contributors with experience in a wide range of article subjects. dr.ef.tymac 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not feel my level of expertise and interest would be sufficient to take on an article like XML. Instead of a "hard ban", would a statement discouraging such article structure be acceptable? The passage could read something like:
 * "Article structures that can imply a point of view should be avoided. Generally, information should be properly incorporated throughout the article. In some instances, a separate section may be warranted. However, great care should be exercised to not create and highlight a loose collection of criticisms."
 * If we find some agreement here, we can solicit further input from the village pump and other appropriate places. Vassyana 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. :-) Morphh   (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's definitely a good start, although I think it will enhance the credibility and foundation in established principles if the addition focuses on "article structure" more generally. I will suggest a counter-proposal ASAP that should help bring us even closer to resolution favorable to all interested parties. I will try to have this up soon. Thanks, Vassyana, for your continued efforts toward resolution. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Take your time. I'm interested in how you would approach tying in article structure more generally. Vassyana 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's in the article text as a hidden comment, you can remove the comment marks and press "show preview" to see the proposed context and placement within the article, to further assist your evaluation and critique of this proposal. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternate link: If the above is too cumbersome, you can also review the proposed text Here at User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad002. dr.ef.tymac 15:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would do very nicely. Morphh   (talk) 0:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the proposed draft deftly addresses all the angles. Nice work. Let's make sure no one objects the wording here and then we can post on the policy village pump to make sure there's a community consensus. Sound about right? Vassyana 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted at the policy village pump to draw outside opinions and make sure there are no major objections. Vassyana 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I love it. This might prove helpful at certain AIM-related and conspiracy based articles in particular where there is a sort of uneasy truce where different sides break off their bits into sections that are essentially repeating claims without comment. --Edwin Herdman 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I would observe, however -- although this needn't be addressed in the policy -- that sometimes the creation of such sections is a necessary step on the path towards building a stable and balanced article.  Which is to say that such sections should be removed, generally, only as part of a process of thorough and thoughtful article improvement. -- Visviva 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft critique round 2

 * Update: The proposed text was removed from the source code of this policy, now that enough people have seen the suggestion for where such a proposal might fit in. The text is still available from User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad002. Changes, additional commentary and review are, of course, still welcome and encouraged.
 * Please note: I also made some minor corrections, some copy edits, and also modified some of the substance to incorporate the point made just previously by Visviva (as also reflected in this discussion thread and other associated talk pages). Regards. dr.ef.tymac 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the second bullet point it says "solely to" ...that fails WP:AGF, in my opinion. I think we are going to have a lot of problems if we have NPOV coming into conflict with AGF, where you can't get something changed unless you can "prove" it's a bad-faith edit. I would change it so it says "(intentionally or unintentionally)" - something like that. --Edwin Herdman 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I see where you're coming from, I will have another go at a rewording unless someone beats me to it. dr.ef.tymac 23:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care for this addition: "Sometimes structural modifications are suggested by contributors as a form of compromise for already unbalanced content." It seems open to very wide interpretation and possible misquoting.  Having such a section is a "compromise" for whatever they determine to be "unbalanced content".  It seems very counter-productive to the entire entry.  I don't think it adds anything and should be removed.   Morphh   (talk) 1:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and that's partially why this discussion thread is so huge. I respect your concerns, Morphh, but there is still a fundamental difference in perspective over the appropriateness of "Criticism sections" ... some contributors unquestionably disfavor them, while others consider them sometimes useful:

sometimes the creation of such sections is a necessary step on the path towards building a stable and balanced article (User:Visviva)

and

There are two main forms of criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. The most obvious is the criticism in a section, often titled "Criticism", found in some articles (Criticism)

and

Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic ... (Ibid.)

and

... "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the meanwhile the "separate" section might be     tagged {POV-section}, {criticism-section} ... (Ibid.)


 * If you can modify it in terms you consider to be not counter-productive, and still capable of expressing some aspect of the view that I felt was still being left out (and what motivated the addition) I happily support. This is essentially the reason why I felt there were concerns with Vassyana's proposal to begin with, any suggestions to help bring this closer to resolution? dr.ef.tymac 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I came back after thinking about it as I think I was too critical and was going to reword my thoughts but you beat me too it. I withdraw my objection but I'll continue to think of how this might be better phrased.  I don't want it to hold up what I believe to be a very good addition.  I also consider criticism sections sometimes useful.  I was just thinking of the statement being used broadly to justify (in articles where it would be better to integrate) such section as a form of compromise.  However, I understand the purpose for the entry.   Morphh   (talk) 2:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but anyway Morphh, if your eyes saw a deficiency, then surely other eyes will as well. So it's better to be hyper-critical up front. It's definitely a struggle to see how to fairly and consistently word this addition. Part of me is still not convinced it's necessary -- but if it's going to be in there, it should be credible and balanced. Thanks for being up-front with your critique. dr.ef.tymac 04:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have the heart to read all of the above. The whole issue with criticism sections can be fairly easily solved by applying the principle of balance in article coverage. All articles should be carefully balanced with space allocated to subtopics in relation to their importance to the overall topic. There are a limited number of subsections an article can have so it follows that only the most important subtopics can have a section. So only those subtopics that can justify their independent importance get one. That leads to only having a criticism section if the criticism of a subject is a unique and important facet in it's own right of the overall topic. Some subjects will have criticism that can be shown by reliable sources to be more important than other facets of the subject. That justifies a section on it. Most cannot and having a criticism section does represent bad writing, planning, and prioritization. - Taxman Talk 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, Taxman, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I do not dispute your formulation, it definitely has support under style guidelines. The question is: 1) whether this stylistic rationale demands elevation to the status of core neutrality policy; 2) whether it has *zero exceptions*; and 3) the extent to which the answer to (1) and (2) have been resolved by consensus. Although your basic formulation is indeed easy, there is ample evidence to suggest that the answer to the above (especially 3) is not as obvious as the formulation itself.


 * I'll be happy to substantiate any specific point you feel needs clarification, because I recognize it is cumbersome to have to read through all this. I will also support any modifications you want to forward on the draft itself, as long as it preserves a balanced representation of this issue, and does not universally proscribe "bad writing" as a fundamental violation of NPOV.


 * Bad writing and POV can be related, (and frequently are) but the *extent* of that relationship is really the issue here, because we're not talking about composing yet another style guideline, we're talking about re-wording NPOV itself. I think this calls for *very* serious consideration from all of us. dr.ef.tymac 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it goes without saying that if an article is not balanced in the way I referred to that it's not NPOV either. If you have a criticism section where one is not warranted, that's unfairly advancing a view. Same for if one is warranted as shown by reliable sources as an important facet of a topic and it's not there, and same as if a criticism section is given an undue amount of space. That doesn't require any rewriting, though if one wishes to make it clearer it could be done. - Taxman Talk 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a suggested revision.
 * "These examples are not intended as a prohibition against certain kinds of article structure. Sometimes structural modifications are suggested by contributors as a form of compromise for already unbalanced content."
 * This really seems to remove the teeth from the section. I believe we can acknowledge exceptions with less permissive language.
 * "While certain forms of article structure are not prohibited, these examples illustrate how article formatting may be abused. Some structural considerations may be a compromise to repair unbalanced content, but care must be taken to preserve a neutral presentation."
 * I believe this preserves the "exceptions" noted, while making sure it is worded strongly enough to be enforceable. Thought? Vassyana 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer this new wording and it addresses my initial concerns with the statement.  Morphh   (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Vassyana I think that is excellent. dr.ef.tymac 14:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed "while" to "although" and re-added the link to the main WP style guidelines as a footnote: complete text of latest revision. dr.ef.tymac 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So where are we with this... Time has been provided for review and comment and it has gained support of those that have done so. Are we ready to move this into the article?  Let's add it.  Morphh   (talk) 13:03, 05 June 2007 (UTC)

One-sided accounts of events as biographical articles
Please read the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23. I've put forward a view of the application of this policy to biographies of living persons, and a suggestion that we can work on. There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, too. Please contribute to the discussions. Uncle G 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV abuse reduction
This is a request for comments as well as a request for improvements/clarifications on current use of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and WP:RS policies.

My apologies if this subject has already been satisfactory resolved as listed in some archive. I believe it has not, based on current evidence.

My first remark is that, as I have seen in some WP articles (e.g., on the area of special relativity), some editors think they can justify keeping an improper POV by demanding to see many sources of authoritative information that show otherwise. However, a simple google search can show that the improper POV is not mainstream in the area.

As I have also seen in other cases (e.g., in special relativity), some editors think they can justify an improper POV by demanding that something that is published 3x and more be considered within the WP:RS (reliable sources) policy. However, not every published source is equally updated or authoritative on the subject matter.

In these cases, and as a result of such use of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, WP has entrenched incorrect and misleading information that is defended without regard to the WP:OWN policy (for example, in special relativity areas). This, in addition to confusing readers and reducing the verifiability of WP, prevents other WP editors from doing productive work on what could be a better version -- with the subsequent loss of time. It may also drive away new editors. In case of an eventual, and more likely with time, reversal, this can also lead to loss of work in intertwined intermediate edits.

With more time, more "rights" are claimed for a former group consensus based on such use of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, making corrections progressively harder under the same flawed use of WP:NPOV, with more "rights" claimed in reversals, in a vicious circle.

Comments? Improvements/clarifications?

I hope this is useful. Thanks. Edgerck 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a content dispute. It might be best handled using dispute resolution. Addressing what I can from what you said, regardless of how correct or incorrect it may be, Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources have said about the matter. By relying what sources have reported about a subject, we limit the influence of editor POV. The ease or difficulty in corrections lies largely in the availability of sources. If the incorrect information is not accepted in the mainstream, it should be easy to find numerous sources taking the "correct", or mainstream, position. This is especially true of the sciences, where falsifiability is a basic requirement of theories and falsification of minority and rejected theories is common. Vassyana 11:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * this is oversimplified. There are not many sources refuting the flat earth theory, or the mystic significance of certain integers, or than the moon landings were faked, because there is no reason to do so: no intelligent person would misunderstand. Similarly, few serious scientists bother refuting the theory that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. The result on WP is that the arguments against such nonsense are hard to write, and tend to be done at a relatively infantile level. It is not easy to find modern sources in peer reviewed journals proving the earth goes around the sun.
 * There are very few articles on WP which could sustain a determined attack on the sourcing. Radical skepticism can undermine almost anything. It has been pointed out several times that few of our photographs can be absolutely proven to be of the persons or thing specified. DGG 05:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that was a simplified response, I believe it holds, even in light of your examples. While it may be difficult to find rational and reliable sources that explicitly refute flat earth and faked moon landings, positive proof to the contrary is easily acquired. There are thousands upon thousands of reliable sources that clearly state the earth is round. Heck, there are plenty of media science columns that raise flat earth as a specific example of a ridiculous claim, or otherwise note that we don't believe that anymore. Hundreds of reliable sources, in the form of government reports, media coverage, science coverage and academic textbooks, specifically state that we did physically land on the moon. They are exceptional claims that require exceptional sources and there quite a weight of references opposed to overcome. The earth revolving around the sun is another claim that is well-supported by an absolutely ridiculous number of sources. On the matter of dinosaurs on the ark, there have been plenty of published refutations by secular humanists, among others, on all of the most common such topics. In a more general fashion, there are plenty of positive claims that dinosaurs were long extinct before man appeared and a fair number of specific refutations of the temporal co-existence of man and dinosaur. On the mystical significance of numbers, while there have been some refutations, they are admittedly more limited. However, I think that is the least concerning of your examples. It's an area that science generally does not really cover or claim to address. A mystical view of the universe is no more or less correct than a scientific view of the universe, and they do not necessarily contradict. However, you can still find a fairly solid set of resources refuting numerology as against standard distribution and a consequence of humans' imperfect pattern recognition. As another example, one can be both a creationist (origin) and an evolutionist (process), with no contradiction between faith and science. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 12:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far. As I announced about a week ago, I am conducting a public experiment to verify the trustworthiness of information in WP. Since information in WP is dynamic, I think this question cannot be answered by simply sampling at specific times. Instead, I decided to measure the lifetime of correct information (defined as correct according to WP policy) that was seeded in WP edits of selected articles. To reduce error in defining what is correct information I used topics that are not the least controversial today, even though they are widely misunderstood (to motivate editing interest).

This is not a "trap". To make sure that my justification for the edits were visible to any editor, I used several channels. I used well-documented edit summary lines, I left HTML tags in the text to call attention to incorrect text that was deleted or changed, and I was available in multiple talk pages, in addition to my own and a special talk page for this experiment. I also answered questions in other editor's talk pages.

Some changes, notwithstanding all the above, were reverted without a WP valid justification. Applying WP policy (as summarized well by Vassyana in the first comment), typically results in the following steps, after a revert:

1. my statement, in the talk page, that the reverted version was correct according to NPOV and RS, with current, authoritative, mainstream, supporting references (while the current version is not), with a call for that version to be reinstated.

2. back arguments, without understanding (or, perhaps even reading) the current references, that the changes do not make sense and contradict well-known (but outdated) authors.

3. Reaffirmation of #1, with more references and with a tag for NPOV dispute placed in the article.

4. The tag is deleted under a call to the "break all rules" WP policy, stating that the article cannot be held "hostage" to a clearly incorrect edit.

While this goes on, anyone reading WP or editing it will not see correct information, where correct information means information that is not the least controversial today.

Now, how many more hoops should a voluntary WP editor have to jump in order to assure that WP reflects a viewpoint that is not controversial? Escalating the edit difference to any form of litigation does not seem to be a pleasant or fun activity, or rewarding in time.

The WP idea of "anyone can edit" finds its limits in the observation that "ignorance is bliss". Those who ignore, by definition, ignore that they ignore. Many subjects, most (but not all) of them technical, have subtleties that are important. It may be easy to read a correct phrase but it is a lot harder to write one, as anyone taking a test knows.

So, requiring a WP editor to follow NPOV and RS when the editor simply does not understand the subject (eg, is not able to ascertain the falsity of his beliefs versus what the references say), seems to be nonsensical. No one can write what they do not understand. The emphasis in WP:Verifiability goes nowhere in such context, and we can see that in WP.

WP is an encyclopedia project but the bottom of the iceberg is currently dominated by an education project for editors, which is open ended.

Looking at this as a pyramid, at the top we have well-educated, scholar editors, numbering (say) one hundred. At the bottom, we have well-meaning but clueless editors who want to edit what looks to them to be an error or lack of an example that they heard somewhere, but which is not correct (according to WP:Verifiability references that they do not have and, even if they would read, would have the same "error").

I don't have the answers. The problem is not anonymity. Academic qualifications do not always mean fairness or even competence. But it seems to me that current WP rules are somewhat in contradiction with the WP goals.

The experiment I mentioned above, hopefully, asks some of the right questions that we need to see in order to improve the quality of information found in WP. The experiment page is at Reliance on Information. Comments are welcome.

Thanks. Edgerck 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "So, requiring a WP editor to follow NPOV and RS when the editor simply does not understand the subject (eg, is not able to ascertain the falsity of his beliefs versus what the references say), seems to be nonsensical. No one can write what they do not understand. The emphasis in WP:Verifiability goes nowhere in such context, and we can see that in WP."


 * This is simply not the case in the relativity articles. Most editors there are experts in physics. The issue there is not really that things are not correct. The references you quoted only seem to contradict what is written because things are defined slightly differently in those refs. This is not a right/wrong issue at all! Your edits were reverted because you deleted large amounts of content from the article.


 * If there is something wrong at all, then that can be repaired by fixing the definition. E.g. in case of the relativistic mass you, citing Okun, wrote that it is not well defined for photons. But that's Okun's POV which follows from the way he defines things. You should have written exactly what is going on here, i.e. that to define a relativistic mass that is also valid for massless particles it must be defined as E/c^2. And then you could have written why Okun demands that a bona fide definition of "relativistic mass" should actually be related to the rest mass, but that this obviously means that it cannot be defined for photons.


 * Okun motivates his requirement by metaphysical arguments, it's not the case that one definition is "correct" and the other is "incorrect".


 * The way you were editing violated NPOV. After your edits were reverted you placed a POV tag and wrote that it can only be removed after the dispute is resolved (meaning that the article will be adjusted to your liking). That's unacceptable behavior. No other editors (and most of them are physicsts) supported your actions.  Count Iblis 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Policy for removing NPOV tags is resolution, not removal war. The technical content issues are best clarified in the talk pages Talk:Mass_in_special_relativity, Talk:Mass-energy_equivalence, and Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity. The POV expressed by the editor above is not mainstream for more than 50 years in research and more than 30 years in textbooks, according to mainstream references (it is easy to find even more):


 * 1) Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshits, (1987) Elsevier, ISBN 0750627689.
 * 2) Lev Okun, The Concept of Mass, Physics Today, June 1989.
 * 3) "Does mass change with velocity?" by Philip Gibbs et al., 2002, retrieved Aug 10 2006
 * 4) Edwin Floriman Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics: introduction to special relativity, W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd (1992), ISBN 0716723271.
 * 5) Lev Borisovich Okunʹ, The Relations of Particles, (1991) World Scientific, ISBN 981020454X, p. 116-119, 127.
 * 6) Usenet Physics FAQ
 * 7) Gary Oas, On the Abuse and Use of the Relativistic Mass, 2005.
 * 8) "Does light have mass?" by Philip Gibbs, 1997, retrieved Aug 10 2006.
 * 9) "What is the mass of a photon?" by Matt Austern et al., 1998, retrieved Aug 10 2006
 * 10) William S. C. Williams, Introducing Special Relativity, CRC Press (2002), ISBN 0415277620
 * 11) "Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding.  That's why we don't use it.  First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector.  Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object.  In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.", in Edwin Floriman Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, Spacetime Physics: introduction to special relativity, op.cit.

I've replied here. Count Iblis 18:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)